
Glass. 
Book. 



/ 

SPEECH 



OF 






ME. CLAY, OF KENTUCKY, 



ON THE 



MEASUEES OF COMPROMISE. 



DELIVEREB IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JULY 22, 1850. 



WASHINGTON : 

PRINTED BY JNO. T. TOWERS, 

1850. 



I& 



i*,' O O fl •• "^ 



SPEECH 



. CLAY, OF KENTUCKY, 



MEASURES OF COMPROMISE, 



DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JULY 22, 1850. 



The Senate having under consideration the bill for the admis- 
sion of California into the Union, the establishment of Terri- 
torial Governments for Utah and New Mexico, and making 
proposals to Texas for the settlement of her northern and 
western boundaries ; and the pending question being on the 
amendment of Mr. Foote, proposing to reduce the boundaries 
of California — 

Mr. CLAY. Mr. President, I hope tliat this amendment will not be pressed at this 
moment, but that we shall have some time for its consideration. If Senators desire it, I 
will move that it be printed. 

The PRESIDENT. It has been printed. 

Mr. CLAY. I was not aware of that. 

Mr. President, it is known to the Senate that it has been my hope and expectation 
that we should dispose of all the amendments either proposed or to be proposed to the 
bill, and that upon the question of its engrossment I intended, with the permission of 
the Senate, to occupy some portion of its lime in taking a rapid review of some of the 
objections that have been made to the adoption of the measure under consideration, 
and then to submit it into those hands in which, by the Constitution of the country, the 
responsibility is placed. The events of Saturday, of which we possess information, de- 
prived us of the opportunity of employing that day in the consideration of those amend- 
ments which were intended to be submitted, or were yet before the Senate. But as 
some rather impatient anxiety has been manifested to arrive at the conclusion of this 
important subject — an anxiety in which, to some extent, I share with others— I have 
risen this morning to perform a duty towards the Committee and to the subject which 
my position prompts me to endeavor to execute. 

I say some impatience has been manifested. [ do not mean it in any unkind sense. 
The honorable Senator from New Hampshire (!\Ir. Hale) who now sits on my left, has 
upon two occasions moved to lay this bill on the table; and his motion was made with 
all the air of con.scious power— as if he felt perfectly secure not merely of the general 
result, but in his being co-operated with by all the opponents of the bill. It is true the 
Senator finally most graciously condescended to withdraw his motion to lay the bill upon the 
table, at my instance, for which I am profoundly grateful. But as I do not desire again 
to place myself in any altitude of solicitation with regard to the progress and the final 
disposition of this bill, I have risen, I repf at, now to perform a duty which apperlains 
to my position. 

Mr. President, in the progrefs of this debate it has been again and again argued that 
perfect tranquillity reigns throughout the country, and that there is no disturbance threat- 
ening its peace, endangering its safety, but that which was produced by busy, restless 



politicians. It has been maintair»e(.i that the surface of the public mind is perfectly 
smooth and undisturbed by u single billow. I most heartily wish I could concur in this 
picture of general tranquillity that has been drawn upon both sides of the Senate. I 
am no alarmist; nor, I thanli God, at the advanced age at which Hia providence has 
been pleased to allow me :o reach, am I very easily alarmed by any human event ; but 
I totally misread the sigiis of the limes, if there be that state of profound peace and 
quiet, that absence of all just cause of apprehension of future danger to this Coiife lera- 
ey, which appears to be entertained by some other Senators. IVIr. President, all the 
tendencies oi the limes, I lament to say, are towards disquietude, if not more fatal con- 
sequences. When before, in the midst of profound peace with all the nations of the 
earth, have we seen a convention, represt-nting a con.-;iderable porlioii of one great part 
of the Republic, meet to deliberate about measure.'; of future safely in conne.'sion with 
great interests of that quarter of the country? When before have we seen, not one, 
but more — some half a dozen — legislative bodies solemnly resolving that if any one oi' 
tiiese measures — the admission of California, the adoption of the Wilmot proviso, or 
the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia — should be adopted byC)ngres?, 
measures nf an extreme character, for (he safely of the great interests to which I refer 
in a particular section of tlie country, would be resorted to r For years this subject ot 
the abolition of slavery, even wrthin this District of Columbia, small as is the number 
of slaves here, has been a source of constant irritation and disqai-!t. So of the subject 
of the recovery of fugitive slaves who have escaped from their lawful owners ; not a 
mere border contest, as has been supposed — although there, undoubtedly, it has given 
rise to more irritation than in other portions of the Union — but every where tTrough the 
daveholding c mniry it has been felt as a great evil, a great wronir, which required the 
intervention of Congressional power. But these two subjects, unpleasant as has been 
the agitation to which they have given rise, are nothing in comparison to those which 
have sprung out of the acquisitions recently made from the Republic of Mexico. 
These are n.t only great and leading causes of just apprehension as respects the 
ftiture, but all the minor circumstances of the day intimate danger ahead, whatever may 
be its final issue and consequence. The establishment of a paper in this city — a sec- 
tional paper — and I wish 1 could say that upon all occasions it propagated truth with 
more attention than iu a particular instance it has done — a sectional paper is estabhslied 
here to espouse, not the interests of tlie entire Union, but the interests of a particular 
section. The allusion 1 made with regard to a departure from the truth, which has in- 
cidentally come to my notice, was called forth by an assertion made, that in the Sta :e of 
Kentucky there was existing great .diversity of opinion upon the subject of the adoption 
of this measure, and that the Constitutional Convention of that .-tate had unamimously, 
or nearly unanimously, rejected a proposition in favor of the compromise. Why, di- 
rectly the reverse is the fact. I should not have observed it at all, had I not noticed on 
yesterday thalit was copied in a paper in Mobile, and was spoken of as an undoubted 
tact that even in the State of Kentucky there svas great division on the subject of the 
compromise. I will say in my place, with the authority whieh appertains to my posi- 
tion, that for fifty years I have never known so much unanimity upon any question in 
that Stite. It 13 a State from which I received a letter from a gentleman, formerly a 
Democratic member of Congress, known very well to my friend from Indiana, now in 
my eye, from the county of irlenry, one of the most populous couniies in that State, in 
which there is a majority of Democratic voters, and in an aggregate of l,9[3d voters, this 
(venlleman — an honorable gentleman, I am proud to say, tliough I differ irom him in 

pojiti.g says that, as far as he knows or believes, there is not a solitary individual to 

oppose it ; and the Constiiutional Convention of Kentucky, instead of opposing it by a 
tiuanim^us vote of the body, expressed its approbation of this pendiig measure, by an 
ananimous vote. One of the misfortunes of the times is the difficulty in peii-'trating the 
Northern mind with truth ; to make it sensible to the dangers which are ahead ; to make 
Lt comprehend the consequences which are to result from this or that course ; to make 
it give a just apprehension to all the events which have occurred, are occnrriivi, or which 
must evidently occur. I said minor as well as major circumstances and events were all 
tending, rapidly, as I fear, to a fatal issue of the matters in controversy betv/een the dif- 
lirent sections of the Union. 

I have seen a pamphlet — and it has been circulated with great industry — eontainhis 
Ml exposition of political economy, written in a style well calculated to strike the mind 
of the masses, but full of error and exaggeration from one end of it to the other— errors 
,>f every sort— setting fortii in the strongest terms the supposed disidvantages resulting 
!i-0TO Che eiicte.ice of this Uoioa to the Southern portion of the Confederacy, and por- 



tiaying in the most lively hues the benefits which would result from separating and set- 
ting lip for themselves. 

Mr. President, I will not dwell upon other concomitant causes, all having Ihe same 
tendency, and all well calculated to awaken, to arouse us — if, as I hope the fact is, we 
are all of us sincerely desirous of preserving this Union — to rouse us to dangers which 
really e."iist, without underrating them upon the one hand, or magnifying them upon the 
other. 

It was in this stage, or state, rather, of the Republic, that my friend from Mississippi, 
(Mr. FooTE,) something more than four months ago, made a motion for the appoinimeni 
of a Committee of Tliirreen. Unlike what occurred at an analagous period of the Re- 
public, when it was my duty to make a similar motion in the other end of the Capitol, 
and when, on account of the benefits which might result from 'he reconciliation of a dis- 
tracted coudtry, the proposition was immediately adopted — on the present occasion, un- 
like what occurred at that historical period, the proposition of the honorable Senator 
from Mississippi was resisted from day to day, from week to week, for four or five weeks. 
An experiineni to restore the harmony of the country met with the most determined and 
setiled resistance, as if the measure which the committee might report, whatever might 
be its chaiacter, would not still be under the power and control of the Senate, to be dis- 
posed of by it according to its own best judgment. Finally, however, the motion pre- 
vailed. A majority of the Senate ordered the committee to be appointed; and among 
the reproaches which v/ere brought forward against that appointment of the committee 
by the S-^iiator tram Massachusetts now in my eye, (Mr. Davis,) it was stated that that 
committee was organized and created by only a bare majority of the Senate. Sir, does 
such a reproach as that lie in the mouth of the Senator, or of others who acted with 
him ? A sense of my duty in this body, or in any body of which I am a member, 
prnmpis me to respect the opinion of the majority of the Senate, and to conform to it as 
far as is coiu-^lstent with my vifwa, and when not so to record my vote along with the 
minority. But in this case, upon the constitution of this committee, only about thirty 
or thirty- one members of the Senate voted at all ; because the honorable Senator, and 
others who concurred with him in opposing the constitution of the Cominittee, choose 
to sit by in suden silence, although members of the body — a minority of the body, it is 
true — without voting, as it was their duty to do. Is this contumacy on their part now 
to be made a ground of objection to the character, constitution, or labors of this committee ? 
Well, the Committee was finally raised and went out. Of its comfiosition it does not 
become me to speak, nor is it necessary to say any thing. The country, the Senate 
will judjje of that. Without, however, saying a word in respect to the humble person 
who now addresses you, I may be permitted to say that a large portion of that committee 
consisted of gentlemen who had honorably served their country in the highest stations at 
home and abroad — men of ripe experience, and whose large acquaintance with public af- 
fairs entitled them at least to respectful consideration when they were engaged in the 
holy oflice — if I may use the expression — of trying to reconcile the discordant parts of 
this distracted country. After having expended some two weeks upon their labors in 
their chamber, the Committee agreed upon a report deliberately made. It had hardly 
been presented before all sorts of epithets were applied to the Com-nittee. They were 
called the thirteen doctors, not in kindness — for tlie honorable Senator from New Jersey 
(Mr. DAFTto-J seemed not only disposed to deny their healing powers, but to intimate 
even that they were thirtaen quacks; (laughter?) that, instead of bringing forward a mea- 
sure to cure and heal the put>lic disease, they had brought forward a measure that only 
aggravated the disorders of the country, and calculated to threaten it with more agitation. 
Mr. Presi(!ent, I need not use one word of recriniinatory language. I leave it to the 
Senate and to the country, and even to the Senators themselves who have indulged in 
such expressions, deliberately to consider whether a measure ititended, at any rate, as an 
olive branch, presented under such auspices as this wa.s, ought to have been so treated, 
and whether the CainmiLtee v,'ho presented it ought to have been so treated? 

Well, sir, the Committee presented their measure, or rather their system of measures, 
eoextensive with a!! the existing disorders of the country, in relation to the subject of 
slavery— a system which, if allowed to produce its beneficent eifecti— and which I enter- 
tain the highest confidence it will produce, if it be adopted by Congress — leaves nothing 
in the public mind to fester and agitate the country. 

The tliree first measures reported by the Committee are those now under consider.i- 
tion— the admission of Californi.», the establishment of Territorial Governments for Utah 
and New Mexico, and the adj'istrrjant q{ tae boundary lictwecn New Mexico and Texas. 



With respect to the other two measures, I shall say but little at this time. It will be in 
order to speak of them when they come up for debate. I cannot forego, however, the 
opportunity of remarking that really I think the honorable Senator from Virginia (Mr. 
Hunter) has manifested too much eagerness to co aside to make occasions of fault-find- 
ing with the character of those measures. He has misrepresented, as I think, not inten- 
tionally no doubt, but misrepresented, as you yourself showed very properly, the nature 
of those bills. But, whatever may be their character at present, when they are taken 
up to be considered by the Senate, it will be in the power of the Senate to modify them 
according to the wishes of the honorable Senator from Virginia. In two important par- 
ticulars that Senator misconceives the character of these two measures. First, in rela- 
tion to the remedy by record in the recovery of fugitive slaves. That was intended to 
be, as his colleague could have told him, merely a cumulative remedy to that already in 
existence. 

Mr. MASON, (interposing.) I am sure the Senator will indulge me one moment. 
My colleague is not now in his seat. When he proceeded to discuss this measure upon a 
tormer day, he was promptly called to order and not allowed to proceed. I do not in- 
tend to call the Senator from Kentucky to order; but I submit to the Senator whether it 
is altogether courteous to refer to remarks of my colleague which he was not allowed to 
pursue. 

Mr. CLAY. I do not mean to go further than the Senator himself did. I have re- 
marked that I do not mean to argue this question at large. I wish to answer the objec- 
tions only which were urged, after which I shall pass over the subject. 1 should have 
almost concluded by this time, if the honorable Senator had not thought it his duty to 
interpose. I was merely going to observe that the remedy of c;irrying a transcript of the 
record to the State to which the fugi.tive had fled, which his colleague alluded to, in ttie 
bill for recovering fugitive slaves, was merely cumulative. And I also intended to ob- 
serve that there is nothing in the bill which proposes the abolition of the slave trade in 
the District of Columbia, which prevents the slaveholder from passing through the Dis- 
trict, in transitu, with his body-servant — nothing to prevent him from retaining him here 
in his possession. The only object was to revive the law of Maryland; and to declare 
that if a slave be brought her for sale, then the person who brings him here for that pur- 
pose shall be liable to the penalty provided for ia the law. But I pass from this subject. 
I mean to confine myself, while I address the Senate, to the three pending measures. 

Mr. HUNTER. Will the Senator from Kentucky allow me to explain ? I do not 
wish to prevent him — because I was called to order — from going into the subject as fully 
as he may choose. I hope he will be permitted to do so, if he has any such desire. In 
relation to that provision of the act prohibiting the slave trade in the District of Golum,- 
bia, he will find, if he will refer to that resolution, that it contains a prohibition of an 
introduction of slaves here for the purpose of being transported elsewhere. If that pro- 
hibition to transpojt them elsewhere would not cover the case of a man who has arrested 
a fijgitive, and brought him and deposited him here while on his way home, or that of 
the man who should be accompanied by his slaves while emigrating to another country, 
I do not know what language could be framed that would do so. I have not the reso- 
lutions by me, or I woiild read the provision. 

Mr. CLAY. I am pretty sure the honorable Senator is mistaken, and that it will be 
found so upon looking at the bill. He speaks of resolutions. I put it to the candor of 
the Senate, why the honorable Senator should go back to the resolutions offered by me 
in the beginning of the session. The question is not with regard to them, or whether 
they be compatible or not with the measures reported by the committee, but in respect 
to the bill, which differs in several important particulars from my resolutions. The 
committee presented such measures as were agreeable to them ; and with respect to the 
abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia, it was their intention simply to 
revive the law of Maryland, and to provide for the case of the introduction of slaves into 
the District as merchandise. 

Mr. HUNTER. The Senator will pardon me. When I used the word "resolu- 
tions" I meant the bill, and I find, on examination, that the bill is as I have stated.* 

Mr. CLAY. Very well. With regard to the intention, that is as I have stated. If 
the language does not effect that intention, we should all be very willing to give it a' 
form acceptable to the Senator from Vi?ginia. The language was only designed to pro- 
hibit that slave trade which consists of purchasing and bringing slaves into the District 



«f Columbia, and putiingthem into depots here for the purpose of being transported to 
foreign and distant markets. As to an idea which has been mentioned here upon a for- 
mer occasion, I have already said that if a person residing in the District chooses to go 
out of the District five or ten miles, and purcliase slaves for himself, the law would not 
prevent him from doing so. But I am taking up more time on this subject than I in- 
tended. When the proper time arrives for its discussion the bill will be vindicated from 
■ the errors into which, I still think, the honorable Senator from Virginia has fallen. I 
have stated that it was my intention to confine my observations to the three measures 
under consideration — the admission of California as a State, Territorial Governments for 
the two Territories, and the establishment ol the boundary between Texas and Nev/ 
Mexico. 

It is a most remarkable circi'instance connected with the debate upon and the progress 
of this measure, that that feature of the bill which was supposed to be less likely to en- 
counter objection — that measure which it has been asserted would draw after it, by the 
force of its own attraction, the other measures contemplated in the bill — it is truly re- 
markable that the measure of the admission of California has encountered the most of the 
difficulties which have been developed in the progress of the bill. The Senator from 
Louisiana, (Mr. SotJLE,) the Senator from Georgia, (Mr. Berrien,) and yourself, sir, 
(Mr. King,) have all directed your attention mainly to the subject of the boundaries of 
California, and to the represenlfltion proposed lor California by the measure under con- 
sideration. I believe, with very slight, if any further modification, all three of the Sen- 
ators to whom I have referred would have been willing, if they could have been satisfied 
with regard to California, to vote for the whole measure. But it is California which we 
have been charged with introducing into this bill for the purpose of conciliating support 
for other measures ; it is California that has created all the difficulties, or at least the 
chief pirt of the difficulties, which the bill has encountered. Now, Mr. President, what 
may be the ultimate vote which may be given, in consequence of the mode in which 
California is bounded, by the three Senators to whom I have referred, depends upon 

their own judgment, and upon their own proper sense of duty. I must say to them 

and I hope they will take it in the same kind and candid spirit in which it is mentioned 

that I cannot see the slightest reason why they should reject the whole measure because 
there is something init dissalisfactoi^ to them in respect to California. They know that if 
this measure is defeated, the chairman of the Committee on Territories (Mr. Douglas) 
will call up the California bill separately, and that it will be passed as it is— with all its 
exceptionable features of extended limits and full representation — in both Houses, by a 

considerable majority. Will they, then, on account of the California part of the bill 

the passage of which, when presented singly, may be regarded as an inevitable event 

will they on account of any difficulties not amounting to constitational difficulties for 

I admit, if gentlemen have, on a deliberate review of their opinions, difficulties of a con- 
stitutional nature, nothing can or should overcome them — will they be constrained, from 
the necessity resulting from entertaining those opinions, to vote against the entire 
measure ? 

But, sir, as I happen to hold directly the opposite opinion, that there is nothing consti- 
tutional in any of the objections taken to the admission of California, and as I trust these 

Senators will themselves perceive that there isnoconsthutional ground of objection that 

it is altogether matter of expediency, addressing itself to the sound discretion and delibe- 
rate judgment of Congress — I do hope and trust, on account of the objections that exist 
to the admission of California, when they perceive it is a part of a great system of recon- 
ciliation and harmony to the country, they will not be disposed to reject the benefits and 
compensations to be found in other parts of the bill ; because they know full well that 
California, just as she has presented herself, with the representation proposed by her, will 
be inevitably admitted, provided this bill is defeated. They must also well know' that 
the adinis.sion of California alone, without any measure accompanying it, will have the 
unavoidable tendency of aggravating the sense of wrong and injury— whether well or 
ill-founded— that existii in the quarter of the Union from which the Senators to whom I 
referred come. 



* The bill referred to was reported to '.he Senate by Mr. Clay on the 8tli of May, eniilled " A Bill to snn- 
piess the slave trade in the District of Columbia," and provides as follows : 

Be it enacted. That from and after the day of next, it snail not be lawful to brina into the 

District of Columbia any slave whatpver, for the purpose of being sold, or for the parpese of bein'''"plac-ed in 
depot, to be subsequently transferred to any other State or place. And if anv slave shall be brought into the 
said District by its owner or by the authority and noiseat of its owner, contrary to the provisions^of lliis act 
such slave sliull thereupon bororn.e iibenleJ and free. ' ■ ' > 



8 

With respect to the Territorial Governments, it is alec a fact worthy of remark thet 
scarcely a Senator who has risen upon this floor has tailed to acknowledge the duty of 
Congress to provide Territorial Governments. Every Senator, almost, who has spoken 
on the subject, has admitted that Territorial Governments ought to be provided ; some 
wishing (or the Wilniot proviso, and others objecting to the proviso ; but, with or w^itliont 
the Wilmot proviso, I have not heard a solitary Senator say that it was not the bounden 
duty of Congress to institute Territorial Governments for these Territories. 

\V?th regard to another plan of disposing of the question— the plan which, upon a for- 
mer occasion, I characterized as the plan of the Executive — of the late President of the 
Lfnited States — I shall have a few brief observationd to make. Allow me to take this 
occasion — the only suitable one, in my opinion — of expressing my deep regret and my 
profound sympathy with the family of the illustrious deceased. I had known him, per- 
haps, longer than any other man in Washington. I knew his father before him— a most 
estimable and distinguished citizen of Kentucky. I knew the late Piesident of the Uni- 
ted States from the time he entered the army until his death, although not seeing him 
often, in consequence of our operations in diflerent spheres of public duty in our country. 
He was an honest man — he was a brave man : he had covered his own head with laurels, 
and had added fame and renown to his country. Without expressuig any judgment upon 
what might have been the just appreciation of his administration of the domesdc i ivil af- 
fairs of the country, if Providence had permitted him to serve out his term, I take plea- 
sure in the opportunity of saying, in reference to the foreign affairs of our Government, 
that in all the instances of which any knowledge has been obtained by me of the mode 
in which they were conductt^d by the late Administration, they have met with my hearty 
and cordial concurrence. Duiing the residue of the remarks which I may address to 
you, if I shall have occasion to stiy any thing upon the plan proposed by the late Presi- 
dent, it will be with the most perfect respect to his memory — without a single feeling of 
unkindness abiding in my breast. Peace to his ashes! and may he at this moment be 
enjoying those blessings in another and a belter v/orld, which we are all desiious, sooner 
or later, to attain ! 

But with respect to the mode of getting over the difBculty in regard to New Mexico, 
the plan was that New Mexico should come in as a State, as soon as she had organized 
a State, adopted her constitution, and presented it here. Now, Mr. President, the Sen- 
ator from New Jersey, who sits near me, (Mr. Dayton,) argued in this way : " You oi 
the Committee have given to the people of New Mexico the power of legislation — the 
power to elect their legislators — the power to pass such laws as may be best adapted to 
their condition ; and where is the difference between the powers with which they are so 
invested, and receiving New Mexico as a member of the Union, represented in both 
branches of Congress?" Why, Mr. President, there is all the difference in the world. 
There is scarcely any people so low in the stage of civilization, even the Esquimaux, 
the Indians on any portion of our continent, that they may not comprehend and be able 
to adopt laws suited to their own condition — few, simple, clear, and well understood; 
for in their uncivilized state it is not necessary to them to have a cumbrous code of laws. 
But it is a widely different thing whether the people of New Mexico may not be capable 
of passing laws adapted to their own unripe and yet half-civilized condition. I speak 
not of the American portion of the population there, but of the Indians, the Pueblo In- 
dians, and some of the half-bloods. It is a very difft-rent thing whether they may not 
be capable ol enacting laws suited to tht ir own condition, or whether they may have two 
Senators on this floor and members in the other House, tJ survey the vast and complica- 
ted foreign and domestic interests of this great republic, and legislate, not for tliemselves 
only, but for us and our present generation. 

For one, sir, 1 must say 1 siiould be utterly unwilling to receive New Mexico as a 
State in her present immature condition. A census will be shortly taken, and we shall 
then know the exact condition of her population. If I am not greatly deceived in my 
opinion, it will turn out that there are not perhaps one thousand American citizens with- 
in the limits of New Mexico, and perhaps not above 8,000 or 10,000 of Mexicans and 
mixed breeds, exclusive of Pueblo and other Indians, and they certainly not in a con- 
dition to comprehend the duties and attend to the rights and obligations which belong to 
the exercise of the government of the people of the United States. It will turn out, I 
am quite sure, when the returns of the census are made, that there is no stated popula- 
tion in New Mexico, such as would justify us in receiving her into the Union, and in 
giving seats to be occupied by members from that State — may I not say it? — in this 
august assembly. 



9 

Now, sir, New Mexico herself wag conscious of her own imperfect condition. New 
Mexico was desirous of a Territorial government. If she has been pushed upon the 
proposal of a government of a different character, to which her population and her con- 
dition did not adapt her, it has only been in consequence of her extreme necessity, press- 
ing her to despair upon her part of obtaining any Territorial government. 

Thus, then, Mr. President, we all agree about the necessity of a Territorial govern- 
ment, with or without the Wilmot proviso. We all agree about the necessity of an ad- 
justment of the Texas boundary — a boundary out of which I say there is imminent dan- 
ger of springing — if the question be not adjusted during the present session of Con- 
gress — one, if not two civil wars — the civil war between the people of New Mexico, in 
resistance to the authority of Texas, to which they are utterly averse, and the civil war 
lighted up on the Upper Rio Grande, which may, in time, extend itself to the Potomac. 
All, therefore, must agree — all have felt — every Senator who has expressed his opinion 
upon this subject during the progress of this debate has avowed his conviction of, the 
necessity of an adjustment, a compromise, a settlement of this boundary. 

It has been objected against the measure that it is a compromise. It has been said 
that it is a compromise of principle, or of a principle. Mr. President, what is a compro- 
mise? It is a work of mutual concession — an agreement in which there are reciprocal 
stipulations— a work in which, for the sake of peace and concord, one party abates his 
extreme demands in consideration of an abatement of extreme demands by the other 
party ; it is a measure of mutual concession — a measure of mutual sacrifice. Undoubt- 
edly, Mr President, in all such measures of compromise, one party would be very glad 
to get what he wants, and reject what he does not desire, but which the other party 
wants._ But when he comes to reflect that, from the nature of the Government and its 
operation, and from those with whom he is dealing, it is necessary upon his part, in 
order to secure what he wants, to grant something to the other side, he should be re- 
conciled to the concession which he has made, in consequence of the concession which 
he is to receive, if there is no great principle involved, such as a violation of the Con- 
stitution of the United States. I admit that such a compromise as that ought never to 
be sanctioned or adopted. But I now call upon any Senator in his place To point out, 
from tlie beginning to the end, from California to New Mexico, a solitary provision in 
this bill which is violative of the Constitution of the United Stites. 

Sir, adjustment in the shape of compromise may be made without producing any 
such consequences as have been apprehended. There may be a mutual forbearance. 
You forbear upon your side to insist upon the application of the restriction denominated 
the Wilmot proviso. Is there any violation of principle jhere ? The most that can be 
said, even assuming the power to pass the Wilmot proviso, which is denied, is that there 
is a forbearance to exercise, not a violation of, the power to pass the proviso. So, upon 
the other hand, if there was a power in the Constitution of the United States authoriz- 
ing the establishment of slavery in any of the Territories— a power, however, which is 
controverted by a large portion of this Senate— if there was a power under the Coristi- 
tution to establish slavery, the forbearance to exercise that power is no violation of the 
Constitution, any more than the Constitution is violated by a forbearance to exercise 
numerous powers that might be specified that are granted in the Constitution, and that 
remain dormant until they come to be exercised by the proper legislative authorities. 
It 13 said that the hill presents the state of coercion— that members are coerced in order 
to get w lat they want, to vote for that which they disapprove. Why, sir, what coer- 
cion is there ? Is there any coercion in the numerous treaties made by the United 
States— the treaty in settling the Vaine boundary ; the treaty coming down from 54 
deg. 40 mm. to 49 in Oregon ; all treaties which have been made upon commerce, upon 
boundaries, and other questions from time to time by the United States, upon the prin- 
ciple of mutual and reciprocal concession upon the part of those who made them 1 Is 
there any more coercion in this case than in the passage of a bill containing a variety 
ofprovistons, some of which you apurove and others of which you disapprove ? Can 
It be said, upon the part of oar Northern friends, because they have not got the Wilmot 
proviso incorporated in the territorial pari of the bill, that they are coerced— wantino- 
California, as they do, so much— to vote for the bill, if they do vote for it' Sir they 
might have imitated the noble example of my friend (Mr. CoofER) from that State upon 
whose devotion to this Union I place one of my greatest reliances for its preservation 
What was the course of my friend upon this subject of the Wilmot proviso ? He voted 
for It; and he could go back to his constituents and say, as all of you could <^o back and 
say to your constituents, if you chose do so, " We wanted the Wilmot proviso in the 
b2ll ; we tried to get it in, but the majority of the Senate was against it." The quea- 



10 

tiou then came up wliether we should lose California, which has got an interdiction in 
her constitution, which, in point of value and duration, is worth a thousand Wilmot 
provisoes ; we were induced, as ray honorable friend would say, to lake the bill and the 
whole of It together, although we were disappointed in our votes with respect to the 
\V limot proviso— to take it, whatever omissions may have been made, on account of the 
superior amount of good it contains. 

It IS said, Mr. President, that this "omnibus," as it is called, contains too much. 
J tliank, from the bottom of my heart, the enemy of the bill who gave it that denomi- 
nation. The omnibus is the vehicle of the people, of the mass of the people. And 
this bill deserves the name for another reason : that, with the exception of the two bills 
which are to follow, it contains all that is necessary to give peace and quiet to the coun- 
try. It is said sometimes, however, that this omnibus is too heavily freighted and that 
It contams incongruous matter. I shall not repeat the argument which I have address- 
ed to you heretofore, showing that, according even to the British Parliamentary law 
but more especially according to the Uongressional law, this bill is in conformity with 
practice in innumerable instances. But the ostensible objection that it contains too 
much matter is not the real one. Do you believe that the !<enator who sits before me, 
(Mr. Bali.wix,) and other Senators in this neighborhood, if you would attach to the 
1 erritonal bills the Wilmot proviso, would have seen the incongruity or felt any intolera- 
ble burden ? Would not the Senator even from .Massachusetts (Mr. Davis) have voted 
for the whole of this incongruous bill with pleasure, if it had only contained the Wilmot 
proviso ? h is not that the bill has too much in it : it has too little, according to the 
wishes of its opponents ; and I am very sorry that our omnibus cannot contain Mr. Wil- 
mot, whose weight would break it down, I am afraid, if he were put there. [Laughter.] 
This incongruous measure, which has already too much matter in it, has not enough for 
the Senator from Tennessee, (Mr. Bell.) He wants to put in it two or three more 
States from Texas, provisionally, upon the event of their becoming applicants for admis- 
sion into the Union. No, sir; it is not the variety of the matter— it is not the incon- 
gruity, the incompatibility of the measures and the bill, but it is because the bill does 
not contain enough to satisfy those who want the " Wilmot," as it has been properly 
called, placed in the omnibus. 

Why, Mr. President, incongruous as it may be supposed, this measure has not half 
the incongruity of the elements of opposition to the bill. While upon this part of my 
subject, allow me to answer an argument delivered with all possible self complacency 
by the honorable Senator near me (Mr. Hale) the other day. He said he had 
gone into a certain apartment of this Capitol, and there he had found my friend from 
Michigan (Mr. Cass) and myself in close conversation; and the Senator fiom Missis- 
sippi (Mr. Foote) with a Senator now no longer in his place, but a Senator called by a 
grateful country to a more responsible station, and who has left us only this morning, 
(Mr. Webstkk.) I might have inquired how the Senator came there. May I ask to 
what keyhole he applied his ear or his eye — in what curtain he was ensconced — to hear 
and perceive these astonishing circumstances, which he narrated with so much ap- 
parent self-satisfaction r [Laughter.] Sir, I have been in repeated consultation 
with my friend (.Mr. Cass)— for so I will call him, and he has shown himself to 
be the friend of the peace of his country — during the progress of this measure, and 
also with other Democratic friends upon this measure. Repeatedly have I been in 
consultation with them upon the subject of this bill and the amendments which have 
been proposed. I regret only that our consultations have not been more numerous and 
of longer duration. But how stands the matter with us, with the friends of this 
bill > On the subject of slavery, the treatment of California, the Territories, the ad- 
justment of the boundary of Texas, the fugitive slave bill, and the bill for abolishing 
the slave trade, there is no difference of opinion between my Democratic friends whom 
I have consulted and myself; but there has been perfect union during all our consulta- 
tions. Allow me to say that there is not a solitary instance in which a subject connect- 
ed with party politics, upon which we might have heretofore differed in the progress of 
the administration of our Government, has been adverted to. We spoke of that mea- 
sure which absorbed all our thoughts, which engrossed all our hopes, which animated 
all our anxieties — the subject of pacifying, if possible, the distracted parts of this coun- 
try — a suiject upon which, between us, there was a perfect coincidence of opinion. 

But how does the matter stand with the extremes who are united against this 
measure ? Why, they are extremes upon this very measure, and upon this very 



11 

subject of slavery ! Upon the very subject under consideration there is among them 
no union of sentiment, no coincidence of opinion, and yet a most cordial and 
confidential co-operation. In our meetings upon this subject, in our consultations, 
Democrats and Whigs convened and consulted together. They threw aside, as not 
germane, and as unworthy of their consideration, all the agitating party politics of 
the day ; and I venture to say that, in those meetings between my Democratic friends 
and myself, there was no diversity or contrariety of opinion upon the only subject that 
brought us together. If I am not utterly mistaken, there are no such union and coinci- 
dence of opinion between the opponents of this bill, who, upon the very subject of 
slavery to which it relates, are as wide apart as the north and south poles. Some of the 
opponents of this bill have had quite as frequent consultation as its friends. Whether 
the Senator near me, from New Hampshire, (Mr. Hale,) was present or not, I am not 
able to say. I do not recollect to have heard that he was one of them ^ but I 

Mr. BUTLER, (interposing.;; I hope that the Senator 

The PRESIDEN'l". Does the Senator from Kentucky yield the floor > 

Mr. CLAY. No, sir, unless it is for an explanation. 

Mr. BUTLER. I only wish to know of one meeting of the particular kind alluded 
to, caucus or any thing of that sort, where these incongruous elements have met together. 

Mr. CLAY, (resuming.) I was going to exonerate you from the association, and I 
only wish I could separate you upon the final vote. [Laughter.] I am afraid we shall 
find you then together. Whose eyes have not witnessed the consultations between the 
extremes of this chamber from day to day? The eyes of every discerning Senator must 
have noticed it. But whether in the consultation between these ultra gentlemen from 
the South there was any mixture of the abolition element which is near me or not, I was 
about to remark that 1 cou'd not say. I have not heard, indeed, that the Senator from 
New Hampshire (Mr. Hale) was present. But if he was absent, and those others 
about to vole upon the final question with some of our friends upon the other side, there 
is no doubt of the fact, Irom what I have heard, that the consultations of some of the 
opponents of the bill were quite as frequent as any which have taken place between the 
friends of the bill. 

Mr. DAYTO.X, (interposing.) I dislike to interrupt the Senator ^ but I desire, as 
one of the opponents of this bill on the side of this chamber, to disclaim all knowledge, 
either direct or indirect, of any such meeting for consultation upon this subject. 

Mr. CLAY. Does the Senator deny all consultation? 

Mr. DAYTON. I have no knowledge of any. 

Mr. CLAY. I alluded more particularly to some Senators whose consultations, as I 
have heard, have been frequent, very firequent; but I do not assert it as a fact. 

Mr. MASON. I would ask the Senator, when he alludes to Southern Senators, of 
whom I am one, if he would be good enough to declare whether he ever heard, or whe- 
ther he has any reason to believe, that Senators from the Southern States have met in 
consultation upon this bill with any Senator from the free States? 

Mr. CLAY. No, sir; I had not heard so. But at the same time I would ask the Sena- 
tor from Virginia whether they have not had frequent consultation amongst themselves? 

Mr. MASON. I will answer freely. There certainly have been frequent consulta- 
tions between Senators from the Southern States upon questions involving the dignity, 
honor, and safety of the Southern States, involved as they conceived in the provisions 
of this bill. 

Mr. CLAY. And so, undoubtedly, did our consultations relate to the dignity, honor, 
and safety of the Union, and the Constitution of our country. (Loud applause from 
the gallery.) 

The PRESIDENT. Order! The Sergeant- at- Arms will clear the gallery if order 
is not preserved. The Chair will not permit the applause to be repeated; if it is, he will 
be under the necessity of ordering all persons to leave the gallery. 

Mr. CLAY. Mr. President, there is neither incongruity in the freight nor in the 
passengers on board our omnibus. We are all heartily concurrent upon the only topic 
which brought us together, and which constitutes the sole subject of our consultation. 



12 

We have no Africans or abolitionists in our omnibus — no di«unionists or free-soilers, no 
Jew or Gentile. Our passengers consist of Democrats and W higs, who, seeing the 
crisis of their common country, and the dangers impending over it, have met together, 
forgetting and throwing far behind thea. their pohtical differences on other subjects, to 
co)npare their opinions upon this great measure of reconciliation and harmony. 

Mr. President, how stand the que.stions which have formed the subjects of our delibe- 
ration so long^ One paity wants the immediate admission of California, and wants the 
imposition ot the proviso in the 'rerritorial Governments. The other party wants the 
limits of (,'alifornia circumscribed, and the Missouri compromise line applied — some of 
them with the express recognition of the right to carry slaves south of it; others with- 
out such a recognition, trusting to an implied constitutional right; and these other par- 
ties are strenuously opposed to the proviso. Some, again, want the Texas boundary 
settled, and others want it to be left open. These are the conflicting opinions which 
we recognise in this body. How are they fo be adjusted'' Is there a Senator or mem- 
ber of the Hi^use, is there a man in this wide countiy, who will say that Congress ought 
to adjourn without settling these questions' Not one. How are these conHicting opin- 
ions to be adjusted, then' Can it be otherwise done than by meeting in the spirit of 
amity and conciliation, and reconciling the great interests to be preserved and promoted 
by union and concord ? 

The honorable Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Davis) says there are no parties who 
can make a compromise. Will the Senator excuse me for saying that this remark smells 
too much of the technicality of Blackstone' J\o parties! Are there not great conflicting 
interests, conflicting opinions, pervading the whole country? \\ ho are the parlies in 
that greatest of all compromises — the Constitution of the United States' There were no 
technical parties to that instrument; but in deliberating upon what was best for the coun- 
try, and jierceiving that there were great and conflicting interests pervading al! its parts, 
they compromised and settled them by ample concession, and in the spirit of true pa- 
triotic amity. They adjusted these conflicting opinions; and the Constitution under 
which we sit at this moment is the work of their hand.s — a great, a memorable, magnifi- 
cent compromise, which indicates to us the course of duty when diflerences arise which 
can only be settled by the spirit of mutual concession. Sir, do we not know, and have 
we not reason to apprehend, that without a combined measure you can do nothing' I 
have heard, Mr. President, that a difierent temper prevails at this time — that it is pos.si- 
ble to carry these measures if they are presented in succession, just as they have been 
reported by the Committee. I take the occasion to say, and I am sure I express the 
sentiment of every member of the Committee, that we are not prompted by the pride of 
opinion, or wedded to any given system of arrangement or settlement of these great na- 
tional questions. We preferred combining them in one measure because we thought it 
most practical and most likely to had to an auspicious result. But if it cannot be 
adopted in the conjoint form reported by the Committee, and if the desired object can be 
better attained by action upon a series of successive measures, without the odious pro- 
viso, not a murmur of complaint, I am quite sure, will ever be heard from a single mem- 
ber of the Committee. It is not the means, it is the great specific end we have in view; 
and however that end is attained — whether by such an arrangement as this Committee 
has pro|)Osed, or by separate act of legislation — the Committee aiid myself are utterly 
indifferent. But it is known to you that if all the measures comprised in the bill 
under consideration are not p'issed, there is danger that in the presentation of th'se mea- 
sures in detail, some of them would fail; and the result would be, that whilst one paity 
got all that it immediately wanted, the other would obtain nothing which it desired. 
You know there was great cause to apprehend— I hope there may be none now — that, 
in the separate presentation of the measures, the consequence would be the attachment of 
the Wilmot proviso in one or the other of the two Houses, and the utter failure to estab- 
lish any Territorial Governments for Utah and New Mexico. It was thought then that, • 
in the spirit of our revolutionary sires, in the spirit which has heretofore pervaded all 
our Government, conciliating and reconciling as much as possible opposing and con- 
flicting intere.'^ts and opinions, we would present a measure which would bind all, and 
that would lead both parties, as far as practicable, to unite upon it for the sake of har- 
mony and tranquillity. We thought then, as I think now, that Senaters from the 
Northern States might go home to their constituents, after this measure shall have been 
passed, and say, " We have got California; she is secure; there is a prohibition of sla- 
very in her constitution that will last perhaps forever; whereas the VVilmot proviso 



13 

would have had a limited and an evanescent duration, existing while the Territorial forna 
of government remained, hut eni'ing whenever the ytate should como to form for herself 
a constitution " Thi;;, our Northern Senators might say with great propriety to theix 
constituents: " We have secured California for you; she is dedicated now and forever 
to that free-soilism which you so much prize." '• Well; but v hy, then," they might 
reply, " have you not put in a restriction in the Territorial bill, so as to secure that, at 
least until they come to be ripe enough to form State Governments for themselves?'* 
Would it not be a satisfactorj' reply to them to say, tliat in your opinion, and in the 
opinion of a large ]iortion of this Senate, the law of Nature, and of Nature's God ex- 
cluded slavery from these Territories, and, according to your opini.m also, the lex loci 
of the land also exclude slavery? And might you not further add, with propriety, that 
you endeavored to reconcile the distracted and disunited portions of this great empire, 
and you thought that no imposition or restriction was necessary to any object which yoH 
desired to attain, and in a spirit of conciliation, therefore, you forbore to vote against the 
final measure, because it secured so much of what the North wanted' Could you not 
say that you vi'cre not in danger of losing what you also wanted in respect to the residue 
of the country ' 

This subject ha=? presented one of the most extraordinary political phenomena that I 
■ever witnessed. Here is a united Senate almost in favor of all the measures in detail — 
in favor of the admission of California; in favor of Territorial Governments for Utah and 
New Mexico, with or without the proviso; in favor of the settlement of the boundary 
with Texas — in favor of all these measures in detail, but opposed to them when they 
come to be presented unitedly to be acted on; admitting the validity of every item of the 
account, but, when it comes to be footed up, denying or unwilling to acknowledge the 
justice of paying the aggregate! Sir, if the measures had been more incoiigriious thaE 
they are alleged to be, there has been ample time for a just conception of them, and just 
as perfect an understanding of them as if they had been presented in successive details. 

I wish, ao'ain, to make only a very few observations about this same proviso. It has 
been argued with an ability which requires no addition, or attempt at addition, from me, 
by the Senator from Massachusetts who has just vacated his seat, that the proviso is not, 
in itself, a principle, but a means to accomplish an end. And where, let me ask, existe 
the necessity for a proviso? You have been told that the existence ot African slavery 
depends upon the character of the cl mate and of the soil. The nature of the soil of 
New Mexico forbids the expectation that slavery will ever be planted there- VVhy, we 
all know that slave labor is applicable only to the great staples which constitute the sub- 
jects of our foreign commerce — cotton, sugar, hemp, tobacco, and rice. Slave labor ha9 
been found, according to American experience, to be utterly valueless, or at least to a 
great extent valueless, in those States where these staple articles are not cultivated. 
Does any bodj' pretend that the soil of New Mexico or Utah is adapted to the cultivation 
of these articles' Do we not all know that if it were adapted, and the climate and soJl 
would allow of their being cultivated, the expense of transportation from New Mexico or 
Utah, either to the Pacific on the one hand, or to the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic oa 
the other, would be, perhaps, ten times the value at home of any of these articles? 

But the honorable Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Davis) has found out a new ob- 
ject of temptation in respect to slaves in New Mexico. He has employed an expression 
which filled all of us with profound regret, on account of the dignity, the character of 
the Senator, and the high stations which he has occupied. He spoke of New Mexico 
being adapted to the breeding of slaves. He has had the good taste to omit that expres- 
sion in his printed speech, and to substitute for it the " traffic" in slaves. 

Mr. DAVIS, (in his seat.) I believe I did not use that expression. 

Mr. CLAY. The Senator did employ it, for it was hearl and noticed by more than 
myself. 

Mr. DAVIS. One cannot always remember precisely the language he uses in the 
hurry of debate. I can only say that I have no recollection of using- the word " breed- 
ing;" and I think if the reporter's notes are preserved and referred to, the word will not 
there be found. I shall have the curiosity to look and see if it is so; but, acci-rding to 
the best of my recollection, I spoke of the capacity of the country for " traffic ' in slaves. 

Mr. CLAY. That is the language of the gentleman's speech, as printed; but the 
word "breeding" was used by the gentleman, or I never heard a word of the speech. 
Several Senators took a note of it, and we expressed how much we were shocked and 



14 

surprised at it. ft was one of the principal topics of the Senator's speech to talii about 
the cotton power, the cotton interest, and the breeding of slaves. Now, if the Senator 
had put it on the ground of a lapsus lingua from the heat of debate, or the unguarded 
character of debate, I should not insist upon attributing it to him; but the expression was 
weed by him, and I marked it; it was fixed on my memory, and very much did I regret 
that he made use of it. This talk, sir, about the cotton power, the lords of the loom, 
and the breeding of slaves, will do for the bar rooms of cross road taverns; but I never 
hoped or expected to hear upon the floor of the Senate such epithets applied to the great 
manufacturers of the North and the cotton-growers of the South. I have struggled with 
the honorable Senator side by side, and I think he might have been disposed to do some 
Httle justice to those States which stood by the North in the great measure of protection 
to American industry. There were Maryland, Delaware, North Carolina, Kentucky, 
and Tennessee, which have generally stood by the principle of protection to iNorthern 
itifcerests; and, among the more Southern Stales, Georgia, I believe, from what I have 
seen of recent niiinifestalions of opinion by her Representatives, was almost ready to 
come up to the suppoit and protection of our own domestic interests. And does not the 
Senator know that it was not the South, the unaided South — for what could the South 
do alone in prostrating the principle of protection ? — but it was the North and the South 
combined — it was Pennsylvania, (unintentionally,) and New York, and Indiana, and 
Ilhnois, and Maine, and New Hampshiie, and other free States, that decided the memo- 
rable contest of '44, and, combined with portions of the South, repealed the act of '42 
by the passage of the act of '46, and prostrated the principle of protection'' And al- 
though, as I have stated on a former occasion, the South may be said in some sense to 
have had the general sway in the political affairs of this country for a long term of years, 
and although (he Presidential office has been filled for the most part with her citizens, 
perhaps it would be as near the truth of history to say that the North itself has governed 
the country through the South. And is the honorable Senator from Massachusetts sure 
that if the calamitous event of the dissolution of the Union were to take place, and the 
North exclusively had the power of passing upon the principle of protection, it could be 
now established? Unquestionably, without the concurrence and support of the North, 
none, of these great measures which are charged to the account of Southern domination — 
the " slave power" or the "cotton power" could have passed. Sir, if my honorable 
friend (f r so I wish still to regard him) wishes ever to see a moderate tariff established 
in this country, which shall secure protection to some extent, he will not do it by throw- 
ing out taunts such as he has done towards the Southern portion of the country in res- 
pect to the " cotton power" or "slave breeding interest." 

This charge upon the slave holding States of breeding slaves for market is utterly false 
and groundless. No such purpose ever enters, I believe, into the mind of any slave- 
holder. He takes care of his slaves; he fosters them, and treats them often with the 
tenderness of his own children. They multiply on his hands; he cannot find employ- 
ment for them; and he is ultimately, but most reluctantly and painfully, compelled to 
part with some of them because of the increase of numbers and the want of occupation. 
But to say that it is the purpose, design, or object of the slaveholder to breed slaves as 
he would domestic animals for a foreign market, is untrue in fact, and unkind to be im- 
puted, or even intimated, by any one. And it is not by such reproachful epithets as 
"lords of the loom," "lords of the plantation," "the slave power," and "the money 
power," that this country is to be harmonized, especially when we are dehberating upon 
those great measures which are essential to its onward progress, and to its present and 
future prosperity. 

Mr. President, it is one of the peculiar circumstances attending my present position, 
as I remarked on a former occasion, that I am generally called upon to vindicate the 
measures proposed in this bill against those whom we have regarded as the friends, 
as well as those who are considered as open, avowed opponents of the measure. I 
anticipated, the other day, somewhat the argument which I beg leave barely to 
advert to now. I think amon(;st our Southern friends two or three great errors are 
occasionally committed. They interpret the Constitution according to their judg- 
ment; they engraft their exposition upon it; and, withcut listening to or giving 
due weight to the opposite interpretation, to the conflicting exposition which is as 
honestly believed by the opposite interpreters as they believe on their side, they 
proclaim their own exposition of the Constitution, and cry out, " All we want is the 
Constitution!" In the comparison and expression of opposite opinions, infallibility 



15 

is not the lot of mortal man. It belongs only to Him who rules the destinies of the 
world; and for any section or any set of gentlemen to rise up and say the "Constitution 
means so and so, and he who says otherwise violates the Constitution," is in itself intol- 
erant, and without that mutual forbearance and respect which are due to conflicting 
opinions, honestly entertained by all who are equally aiming to arrive at the truth. 
Now, I said the other day that the Wilmot proviso, as proposed to be enacted by the 
Congress and incorporated in Territorial bills, was a question totally distinct from the 
insertion of the restriction in a constitution formed by a newly organized State. 

It is the opinion of the opponents of the bill, and the opinion, too, of some of its 
friends— although it is not my own opinion— that the Constitution confers no authority 
upon Congress to impose a restriction upon the subject of slavery in Territorial Govern- 
ments. Very well: if Congress has no power to impose such a restriction, and never- 
theless does exercise such a power, it is usurpation ; it is the assumption of illegal 
authority ; it is wrong in any view of the matter— a grievous and oppressive wrong. 
But when a State which is about to enter the Union, and is deliberating concerning a 
constitution which is best adapted to promote her interests and happiness, chooses to 
consider whether she shall admit or exclude slavery, and decides to excude it, can such 
an exercise of authority on the part of the State— a conceded power— be confounded with 
the unconstitutional exercise of it by Congress? 

Now, do not our Southern friends vpho oppose this bill upon the ground that there is 
an interdiction to the introduction of slavery in the California constitution, and that that 
is equivalent to an interdiction exercised unlawfully by Congress, according to their 
views do they not mingle truth and falsehood, black and white, things totally dissimi- 
lar' It is of no consequence what effects the one or the other measure may produce. 
That is a different question. The question is one of power; and I say the exercise of 
such a power, which they regard as a usurpation by Congress, is totally distinct from 
the lawful exercise of a similar power by a State forming for herself and her own govern- 
ment a constitution. Three years ago, two years ago, one year ago— one short year 
ago — the great complaint, on the part of the slaveholding States of this Union, was the 
apprehended infliction upon their interests of a restriction called the Wilmot proviso. 
Well, we have met together; there has been a change of public opinion, a modification 
of public opinion, at the North. And allow me to say that, with regard fo that most 
important portion of our Union — its Northwest section — that no man is more entitled to 
honor and gratitude for this salutary change than the honorable member in my eye — 
(Mr. Cass) who represents Michigan. He came here with his hands tied and bound 
by a restriction which gave him no other alternative than a violation of his conscientious 
convictions of duty, or a resignation of his seat into the hands of those who sent him 
here. Discussions have taken place in this House, in the country, in the press — they 
ran through the North, and Michigan nobly released and untied the hands of her Sena- 
tors, and left them free to pursue their own best judgment to promote the interests of 
their country. And allow me to say this is the feeling of all the Northwest. There is, 
indeed, one honorable Senator here, (Mr. Dodge, of Wisconsin,) whose grave and 
Roman-like deportment in this body has filled me with admiration throughout our entire 
service here together— a Senator crowned with laurels by his military deeds in the field 
of battle. And if he will allow me to address him, approaching, as we both are, to the 
dose of life, I would say to him that there is nothing wanting to a consummation of his 
glory, and his assignment to a more important and conspicuous position in the country's 
history— there is nothing wanting but to cap the climax of renown by contributing to 
carry triumphantly through this important measure of conciliation. 

Let me for one moment — assuming the passage of the various measures which com- 
pose the system reported by the Committee of Thirteen — let me see what will be the 
condition of the two sections of the Union — what has been gained and lost by each. 
The North gains the admission of California a? a free State, and the high probability of 
New Mexico and Utah remaining or becoming free territory; avoids any introduction of 
slavery by the. authority of Congress; sees New Mexico detached from Texas, with a 
high degree of probability — from the nature of the climate and the character of the soil, 
and from other circumstances — that New Mexico will ultimately become a free State ; 
and secures the abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia. Are not these 
objects of sufficient magnitude to satisfy any moderate, rational. Northern wishes? And 
what will the South gain > The South avoids the assertion by Congress of the danger- 
ous principle, as they regard it, contained in the Wilmot proviso; places beyond contro- 



16 

viersy nine hundred miles of the territory of Texas on the Rio Grande, now in dispute; 
gains an efficient fugitive slave bill, and silences the agitation about the abolition of sla- 
very in this District, f^ir, it may happen— and I am not going to disguise my convic- 
tions as to the probabilities of the fact— that the South will get no territory in Utah, New 
Mexico, or California, adapted to slave labor, in which slaves will be introduced. But 
that is not the fault of Congress. It is Congressional power, Congressional usurpation, 
Congressional assumption of an unlawful authority over the institution of slavery, 
against which the South raises her voice in protestation. If she cannot get slave terri- 
tory in California, New Mexico, and Utah, whose fault is it 1 She cannot blame Con- 
gress, but must upbraid Nature's law and Nature's God ! 

In human affairs yet to be attained, there are four conditions under which they pre- 
sent themselves— the certain, the probable, the possible, and the impossible or the inevi- 
table. The certain requires no effort ; the probable only a little effort ; the possible may 
be accomplished by an indomitable will, and an energetic perseverance in the pursuit of 
it. But that which is impossible and inevitable, philosophy, reason, religion, and all 
the guides which are given to us by the blessing of God, inculcate upon us the duty of 
submission to His will, and resignation to His paramount authority. Now, it is inevi- 
«abie, in my opinion, that Southern slavery is excluded from the possession of any por- 
tion of California, Utah, and probably of New Mexico ; and, if sa, why contend for it ' 
Now, what is it that distracts the public mind ? A mere abstraction. We look back 
with surprise and astonishment at the prosecutions and punishments for witchcraft that 
some two hundred years since occurred in the States of Massachusetts and Connecticut. 
Two hundred years hence, if not much sooner, our posterity will read the history of the 
present times, agitating and threatpning the country as they do, with as much astonish- 
ment as we pore over the leaves of the historian in which he recounts the witchcraft, 
and the persecution and punishment of witches in former times. And why contend for 
carrying slaves to Utah and New Mexico, where there is nothing upon which their 
labor can be employed — where nobody will take them ? Let me remind gentlemen 
DOW, while upon this part of the subject — I mean those who are desirous for the greatest 
extension of the theatre of slavery — of a danger, and a great and an imminent danger, 
which they are incurring. I venture a prediction — not likely to be fulfilled or decided, 
perhaps, in the course of the short remnant of my life — that if Texas includes all the 
territory now claimed by her — nay, I go further, although the contingency I am about 
to state is less likely to happen by the curtailment of the boundary — I venture to say 
that, in some thirty, forty, or fifty years, there will be no slave State in tiie limits of 
Texas at all. I venture to predict that the northern population — the population upon 
the upper part of the Rio Grande — will in process of time greatly outnumber the popu- 
lation holding sla' es upon the Gulf and the lower waters of Texas ; and a majority will 
be found to be adverse to the continuance of slavery, and it will either be abolished, or 
its limits effectually circumscribed. This is no new opinion with me. I think that I 
gave the same in a letter which I wrote some six years ago from Raleigh, in the State 
of North Carolina. I said that if two, three, or four States were formed out of Texas, 
they would ultimately become free States. And I say that the probability is very great 
of all Texas becommg free, if it all remains as she has claimed, including from the 
mouth of the Rio Grande to its source, or even limited by El Paso But, whether it 
fee great or small, it appears to me that it is the interest and duty, and it should be the 
inclination of the South, to look at facts and nature as they exist, and to rec(incile them- 
selves to that which is inevitable and impossible — to reconcile themselves to the fact that 
it is impossible, however desirable it may be in the opinion of any of them, to carry 
slaves to the countries which I have described. 

But, Mr. President, in the supposition which I have made as to what is gained by 
either section of the Union in consequence of this arrangement of the common difficul- 
ties between them, is there anything of which the South can justly complain '' The 
fault of Congress cannot be cited as depriving them of the opportunity of carrying their 
slaves there. The provisions of the bill are that the people are left free to do as they 
choose. There is, indeed, one provision which did not meet with my approbation, and 
with which I would have been better satisfied had it been left out ; and that is, the pro- 
vision which does not permit the government of the Territories to establish or prohibit 
slavery. But it was introduced at the instance of some Southern gentlemen. And 
another amendment was also introduced at their instance, which expressly provides that 
• sf any Stales from this Territory shall come here, with a constitution admitting slavery. 



It 

such State is to he admitted ; that the fact of the provision for or against slavery is to 
constitute no ol)iection to her admission into the Union. Now, what complaint can 
the South nirtki' if the whole scheme is carried out > The South gains a virtual ahan- 
donment of the H'ilmot proviso, avoids the assumption of any power dangerous to the 
institution of slavery wiihin the States, or the application of such power to slavery with- 
out the States, and secures nine hundred miles of now disputed territory. It is quite un- 
reasona'ile for any gentleman from the South or elsewhere to get up and say that the title 
of Texas to this country is indisputable — that it is as clear as the title of any other State 
to any other territory in the Union. There is an opposite opinion, and I share myself 
in the doiiht of the validity of the claim of Texas from the mouth of the Rio Grande to the 
source of tliat stream. There are opposite opinions honestly and sincerely entertained 
by both parties What is to be done in such a case > You refuse to appeal to the Su- 
preme Court of the United States — you disown any jurisdiction which can settle the 
question. Texas at this moment threatens, we understand, by force of arms to enforce 
her claim upon Xew Mexico. How is the question to be settled ? Can it be done 
otherwise, satisfactorily done, than by compromise, and by the compromise proposed in 
this bill > I repeat, the South gets nine hundred miles of the best part of the country 
bordering upon the Rio Grande put out of the controversy as to the present right to 
transport eluvcs there. She gains the abandonment of the V^'ilmot proviso, and she gets 
a fugitive slave bill, which I trust will be rendered efficient ; and she also gets, as I 
trust ( shall be able to show in the progress of my argument, the abandonment of the 
agitation of the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. What more can the 
South ask ^ Congress does nothing to injure her, denies her no rights, has offered as 
much as it can, and says that if any new State shall come here, it shall be admitted 
with or without slavery, as they choose. What more, let me ask, can the South demand ^ 
Sir, I repeat that, if the South does not gain the sanction of her right to carry slave? 
into the new acquisitions, it is because, according to her own doctrine. Congress has no 
constitutional authority to confer such a privilege, and because California, exercising 
her undoubted power, has excluded slavery from her limits, and because in the limits of 
Utah and •Sew Mexico the laws of Nature and of Nature's God exclude slavery. Now, 
let me, at this point of the case, stop a moment to compare the system of measures re- 
commended by the <'ommittee with what has been contended for by some of the South- 
ern Semtors during the pxogress of this bill, viz: the line of 36 deg. 30 min. to be run 
to the Pacific — to cut that much off, of course, from the State of California. Let us 
consider that question under two aspects: first, without a provision that slaves may be 
carried sou h of that line; and secondly, with a provision that they may be carried 
south of that line. If a line is run without a declaration as to its effect upon the 
one side or the other of the line, you might as well run a line upon the sands, upon the 
ocean, or in the air; it would be obliterated by the first blast of wind or the first billow. 
I am aware that there are gentlemen who maintain that, in virtue of tho Constitution, 
the right to carry slaves south of that line already exists, nnd that, of course, those who 
maintain that opinion want no other security for the transportation of their slaves south 
of that line than the Constitution. If I had not heard that opinion avowed, I should 
have regarded it as one of the most extraordinary assumptions, and the most indefensi- 
ble position that was ever taken by man. The Constitution neither created, nor does it 
continue slavery Slavery existed independent of the Constitution, and antecedent to 
the Constitution; and it was dependant in the States, not upon the will of Congress, but 
upon the law of the respective States. The Constitution is silent and passive upon the 
subject of the ins'itution of slavery, or rather it deals with the fact as a fact that exists, 
without having created, continued, or being responsible for it, in the slightest degree, 
wiihin the f^tates. There are but three provisions in the Constitution which relate to 
the subject of slavery. There is that which sulijects slave property to taxation; that 
which mikes it a component part in the estimation of the population in fixing the ratio 
of represent ition; and that which provides for the recovery of fugitive slaves. That is 
the whole extent of the constitutional provisions upon the subject of slavery. It no 
more instituted slavery, or is responsible for its continuance or its protection for a mo- 
ment, while it remains within the bosom of the States, than it is responsible for the pro- 
tection of any other personal property, depending for its protection upon the State and 
not upon Congressional law. Why, it is said that upon the high seas, a vessel, of 
■whose cargo slaves compose a part, would be under the protection of the Constitution 
and the Government of the United States. So it would be upon the ocean; and why? 



18 

Because there is no separate jurisdiction existing there in any nation; but there is a com- 
mon jurisdiction — common to all nations — and the flag which floats at the mast head of 
the ship carries with it the laws of the nation to which the vessel belongs. But the mo- 
ment the vessel gets out of that jurisdiction, the moment it gets into a separate territorial 
juiisdiction, the flag, and the ship, and the cargo become subject to the territorial juris- 
diction, and are no longer under the protection of the Constitution ol the [Jnited States. 
"Why, sir, that is not only true of the free States of this Union, but it is true of the slave 
States. Thus, if a vessel leaves the port of Charleston with a cargo of slaves, and enters 
into the port of Boston or New York, the moment she casts anchor within the harbor — 
the moment she comes within the territorial jurisdiction of the laws of Massachusetts or 
New York, those laws operate upon the slaves, and determine their actual condition. 
I speak of course of the case in which they are voluntarily carried there. If they are 
carried there without the consent of the owner, they may of course be pursued under the 
provision of the Constitution which relates to fugitives. But if they are voluntarily car- 
ried, the instant they quit the wide ocean, and come within the territorial jurisdiction, 
they are subject to the laws of that territorial jurisdiction. If you were to carry a cargo 
of slaves into the port of Liverpool or Havre, does any any man pretend that the flag of 
the United States would protect them, after they enter into the territorial jurisdiction of 
England or France ? No such thing. Nor is it like the case which has often been cited • 
in argument, of the slaves which were cast upon the Bahama islands, which occurred 
some years ago, That was an involuntary loss of property, consequent upon the act of 
God. I do think- Great Britain was bound in comity, if not in strict justice in that 
case, to surrender those slaves, or to make ample indemnity for them, and not to take 
advantage of an involuntary and inevitable misfortune. But if slaves are voluntarily 
carried into such a jurisdiction, their chains instantly drop off, and they become free, 
emancipated, liberated from their bondage. 

But I have said that this is not only the general law, and the law applicable to the free 
States of this Union, but it is the law of the slave States themselves. The law in Lou- 
isiana is now repealed; but some years ago there was a law in that State which prevented 
the exportation of slaves from other States into the limits of that State; and if then you 
had gone with a cargo of slaves into the port of New Orleans, they would have become 
legally free, or the owners would have been subjected to a heavy penally, according to 
the enactment of that State. And there is at this time, if I am not mistaken, a law of 
Mississippi, which is not repealed, (one of the Senators from Mississippi will inform me 
if I am wrong,) which forbids the introduction of slaves as merchandise; and if you 
carry from Kentucky or Tennessee a steamboat load of slaves, you lose your property. 
I believe that in the case of Mississipj/i.the slave does not become free, but that the party 
■who imports him is subjected to a heavy pecuniary penalty. Such is the state of the 
law, as 1 believe, at this time, in the State of Virginia. It is, therefore, not only true 
ol other foreign nations, but it is true of the States composing this Union, that the mo- 
ment a slave enters the territorial jurisdiction of the State or foreign country, the laws 
of the place determine his condition, and not the laws of the flag of the ship in which 
he is transported there. On the ocean the flag determines the jurisdiction, for the rea- 
sons I have assigned; but the moment they come within the separate jurisdiction of any 
State or country, that moment they become amenable to, and are liable to be dealt with 
according to, the laws of that country. If the Constitution possess the paramount au- 
thority attributed to it, the laws of even the free States of the Union would yield to that 
paramount authority. If, therefore, it be true that, according to the laws now in force 
in California, New Mexico, and Utah, slavery cannot be introduced— if such is the lex 
loci, the Constitution of the United States is as passive and neutral upon the subject as 
the Constitution or Government of any other country upon earth. It protects wherever 
upon the high seas the slave is out of the separate jurisdiction of any State, foreign or 
domestic. It affords no protection when it comes within the scope and jurisdiction of 
laws which forbid the existence of slavery. I do not mean to go into a long argument 
upon this subject. I did intend, at one time, to take it up and discuss it very fully. I 
have thought it best, however, under all the circumstances of the case, merely to express 
these brief opinions, which I entertain in relation to it. In my opinion, therefore, the 
supposition that the Constitution of the United States carries slavery into California, 
supposing .her not to be a State, is an assumption totally unwarranted by the Constitu- 
tion. Why, if the Constitution gave the privilege, it would be incompetent for Cali- 
fornia to adopt the provision which she has in her constitution. The Constitution of 



19 

the United States being supreme, no State could pass an enactment in contravention of 
the Constitution My rules of interpreting the Constitution of the United States are 
the good old rules of '98 and '99. I have never in my life deviated from those rules. 
And what are they ' The Constitution is an aggregate of ceded powers. No power is 
granted except when it is expressly delegated, or when it is necessary and proper to carry 
into effect a delegated power. And if in any instance the power to carry slaves into the 
Territories is guarantied to you by the ('onstitution, or is an incident necessary to the 
carrying out of any other power that is delegated in the Constitution, I have been unable 
to perceive it. Amidst all the vicissitudes of public life, and amidst all the changes and 
turns of party, I never have in my life deviated ' from these ureal, fundamental, and I 
think indisputably true principles of interpreting the Constitution of the United States. 
Take these principles to be true, and where is the power — can any body pomt it out to 
mei* — which gives you a right to carry your slaves to Cahfornia' Where is the delega- 
ted power, or the power to which it attaches as a necessary implication? It is no- 
where to he found. You must resort to some such general principle as the Federalists 
did in the early history of this country, when they contended for the doctrine of the 
" general welfare." iBut you cannot put your finger on the part of the Constitution 
which conveys the right or the power to carry slaves from one of the States of the Union 
to any Territory of the United States 

Mr. President, you will remark that I am expressing an opinion upon the power, the 
constitutional ri.iht. I do not go into the question of how the powers of Government 
are to be exercised or applied in the course of administration. That is a distinct ques- 
tion. I am arguing the question of constitutional power. Nor, sir, can I admit for a 
single moment that there is any separate or several rights upon the part of the States, or 
individual members of a State, or any portion of the people of the United States, to 
carry slaves into the Territories, under the idea that those Territories are held in common 
between the several States. It is a joint property, held by a common trustee for the 
general good, and to be administered by the General Government, according to its delibe- 
rate judgment of what will best promote the common happiness and prosperity, and do 
justice to all. 

If, therefore, I am right in these opinions which I have expressed, to run a line at 35 
deg. or 36 deg. 30 rain, through California, without declaring what the effect of that 
line shall be, either south or north of it, would, I repeat, be running a line in the sand — 
a line without motive, without purpose, without accomplishing any end whatever. 
Therefore I must say that those Senators upon the other side, who have contended for an 
express recognition of the right to carry slaves, south of that line, have contended for 
something much more perfect and efficient than to run a naked line without any such de- 
claration. But, then, there are two considerations which oppose insuperable objections 
to any such recognition or declaration to carry slaves south of that line. The first is, 
that you cannot do it without an assumption of power upon the part of Congress to act 
upon the institution of slavery; and if they have the power in one way, they have the 
power to act upon it in the other way; and the power to act upon it either way is what 
you have denied, and opposed, and endeavored to prevent being accomplished for the last 
two or three years. It would be an assumption, a usurpation according to the tSouth- 
ern doctrine, for Congress to exercise any power either to interdict or establish slavery 
upon either side of a given line. The other objection to accomplishing this end is, that 
it is impracticable and unattainable. A majority neither of this House nor of the other 
House- not one third probably of this House, and perhaps still a smaller portion of the 
other House — could be got to affirm any right of transporting slaves south of 36 deg. 
30 min. It is then wrong in principle, and impracticable and inexpedient. Why, then, 
contend, let me ask, for a line which, if attainable at all, is attainable without value, 
without necessity, without advantage to the South ? Or why attempt that which is 
utterly unattainable — a line which shall secure any express provision for the power or 
right on the part of the slaveholder to carry his slaves south of it' 

Having endeavored to show that the measure which we have under consideration is 
better for the South than the Missouri line, let me compare the measure in a few brief 
words with the other one which has been under consideration by us heretofore. The 
other measure proposes to admit California forthwith, and New Mexico as soon as she 
presents a constitution, and Utah to follow on some time after New Mexico is admitted — 
all to be permitted to decide the question of slavery for themselves, without any inter- 
vention of the power or authority of Congress. 



20 

Well, what adva-ntage is that to the South'? You know — for I believe it has been al- 
ready done by the constitution of New Mexico, as well as by that of Calift.i nia — that slavery 
will be prohibited. You know that if New Mexico comes in, she conies in like Califor- 
nia, with an interdiction of slavery; and you know that she will never come in without 
such an interdiction. What do you get, then ? What advantage to the South ? Sir, 
it is a one-pided measure— the measure which I am considering. It is all North, and 
looks not at all towards Southern interests. It is liable to objections which I have already 
stated upon a former occasion, and which it is not necessary that I should repeat now. 
But if you admit New Mexico with the boundary between her and Te.xas unadjusted, 
what may the consequences be 1 You admit a Territory and people who, if T^xas shall 
establish her claim to the wholf extent of the eastern border of the Rio Grande, may 
be cut off by the subsequent action of Texas, or of the Supreme Court of the United 
States. You admit the State of New Mexico, afterwards to be cut in two, and a State 
left in the Union without territory, and without people ; for I will state what is well 
known I dare say to other Senators, that all the people who can constitute any ground 
or color of claim for the admission of New Mexico into the Union as a State, are upon 
the east side of the Rio Grande, and all the territory worth having is upon the same side 
of that river. Then it happens, if the plan presented for the admission of these States 
be adopted and carried out, you take California absolutely, with all her present limits, 
and New Mexico in such a way that it may happen that you will have a State in the 
Union without territory and without people. Texas by the assertion and successful 
prosecution of her claim, will have taken all the territory and all the people that would 
have constituted any ground for the admission of the State of New Mexico. 

Mr. President, I approach now the question of what the consequence must b?' of the defeat 
of the measure now before the Senate, and what the consequence will probably be in case 
of the successful support of the measure by Congress. If the bill is defeated, and no equi- 
valent measure be passed, as in all human probability would be the case — if this measure 
is not passed, and we go home, in what condition do we leave this free and glorious 
people ? In regard to Texas there is danger, as I have remarked, of two civil wars. 
There is danaer in the first place, of the resistance of the people of New Mexico to the 
authority of Texas, supposing non-interference on the part of the General Government. 
But if New Mexico goes on to organize herself into a State Government, and insists 
upon the exercise of the powers which appertain to State sovereignty, we must shut our 
eyes and be blind to passing events, if we do not see that there is danger of a servile 
civil war, originating between Texas and — if you please — the troops of the United 
States that may come in in aid of New Mexico. Assuming that Texas will move with 
military array upon New Mexico, there will probably be resistance upon the part of the 
General Government to the entry of the troops of Texas into the limits of New Mexico, 
although there may be uncertainty as to the course upon this subject which will be taken 
by the Administration just coming into power, upon which we have the advantage of no 
light whatever. But we know that the Administration which has just passed out of 
power would, in that contingency, have repelled the attack made by Texas. If the 
present Administration should feel it incumbent upon itself to repel such an invasion 
the consequences which I am about to portray are at least possible, if not likely to 
occur. 

I am not going to magnify the power of Texas. I am not going to magnify the power 
of any single State. It is with infinite regret, with profound sorrow and surprise, that I 
hear individuals in States talking as they occasionally do, with so little respect to the 
power and justice of the General Government. Why, it was only the other day that 
a member, returned from the Nashville Convention, addressed, we are told, the people 
of Charleston, South Carolina, proposing to hoist the standard of disunion. I do not 
know which most to admire the gravity and possible consequences which inay ensue from 
carrying out the views of the delegate to the Nashville Convention, or the ridiculous 
scenes which occurred during the course of the public meeting. He was applauded 
most enthusiastically — as I learn from the public papers, and as I learn also from a 
creditable gentleman who was present at the meeting — when he declared thit, if the 
South did not join herself to this standard of rebellion. South Carolina would herself 
raise it, and fight this Union singly and alone ! Yes, said a gentleman in the audience, 
in a fit of most patriotic enthusiasm, and if South Carolina does not do it, I, with my 
strong arm and my long purse, will fight the Union myself 

Mr. President, I have no patience for hearing this bravado, come from what source 
it may. At the same time, I am not disposed to undervalue its importance as one of 
many cotemporaneous events. 



2^ 

There are certain great interests in this country which are contagious, sympathetic. 
If the contest were alone wilh Texas and the United States, I think there would be some 
little probability that the United States might come off victorious in such a contest with 
Texas. It is possible that the twenty-nine other States in the Union might repel an in- 
vasion of Texas upon ISew Mexico, if every other country stood aloif, and left the two 
parties, the United States and Texas, to fisht out the contest. I think there is some 
probability that, with the gallant individual now in my eye, (General Scott.) in com- 
mand of our armies, who has already so signalized the glory of his country and himself, 
we might come off not second best in a contest with Texas alone. But, sir, Texas will 
not be alone; if a war breaks out between her and the troops of the United States on the 
Upper Rio Grande, there are ardent enthusiastic spirits of Arkansas, Mississippi, Lou- 
isiana, and Alabama, that will flock to the standard of Texas, contending, as they be- 
lieve they will be contending, for slave territory. And they will be drawn on, State by 
State, in all human probability, from the banks of the Rio Grande to the banks of that 
river which flows by the tomb of Washington. I do not say this will happen, but I say 
there is danger that it may happen. If there should be a war, even of all the Southern 
States with the residue of the Union, I am not going to say that in such a contest, such 
a fraticidal contest, the Union itself, the residue of the Union, mi.'ht not prove an over- 
match for Southern resistance. I will not assert what party would prevail in such a 
contest; for you know, sir, what all history teaches, that the end of war is never seen in 
the beginning of war, and that few wars which mankind have waged among themselves, 
have ever terminated in the accomplishment of the objects for which they weie com- 
menced There are two descriptions of ties which bind this Union and this glorious 
people together. One is the political bond and tie which connects them, and the other 
is the fraternal commercial tie which binds them together. I want to see both preserved. 
I wish never to see the day when the ties of commerce and fraternity shall be destroyed, 
and the iron bands afforded by political connexions shall alone exist and keep us together. 
And when you take into view the firm conviction which Texas has of her undoubted 
right, when we know at this moment that her Legislature is about to convene, and be- 
fore the autumn arrives, troops may be on their march from Texas to take possession of 
the disputed territory of New Mexico, which she believes to belong to herself — is there not 
danger which should make us pause and reflect, before we leave this Capitol without pro- 
viding against such a perilous emergency? Let blood be once spilled in the conflict be- 
tween the troops of Texas and those of the United States, and, my word for t, thousands 
of gallant men will fly from the States which I have enumerated, if not from all the 
slaveholding States, to sustain and succor the power of Texas, and to preserve her in 
possession of that iu which they, as well as she, feel so deep an interest. Even from 
Missouri — because her valiant population might most quickly pour down upon Santa Fe 
aid and assistance to Texas — even from Missouri, herself a slave State, it is nut at all 
unlikely that thousands might flock to the shnidard of the weaker party, and assist Texas 
in her struggles. Is that a state of things which you, Senators, can contemplate without 
apprehension' Or can you content yourselves whh going home and leaving it to be 
possibly realized before the termination of the current year? Are you not bound, as 
men, as patriots, as enhghtened statesmen, to provide for the contingency ^ And how- 
can you provide for it better than by this bill, which separates a reluctant people about 
to be united to Texa.s, a people who themselves, perhaps, will raise the standard of re- 
sistance against the power of Texas— which separates them from Texas, and guards 
against the possibility of a sympathetic and contagious war, springing up between the 
slave States and the power of the General Government, which I regard as almost inevi- 
table, if Congress adjourns with the admission of California alone, stopping there, and 
doing nothing else. For, sir, the admission of California alone, imder all the circum- 
stances of the time, with the proviso still suspended over the heads of the South, with 
the abolition of slavery still threatened in the District of Columbia— the act of the admis- 
sion of California, without provision for the settlement of the Texas boundary question, 
without the other portions of this bill, will aggravate and embitter and enrage the South, 
and make them rush on furiously and blindly, animated as they believe by a patriotic 
zeal to defend themselves against IS'orthern aggression. I call upon you, then, and I 
call upon the Senate, in the name of the country, never to separate from this Capitol, 
without settling all these questions, leaving nothing to disturb the general peace and 
repose of the country. 



22 

Mr. President, I have hitherto ar^ucJ upon the contingency of nothing being done but 
the simple ad mission ofCalifornia. Now, let me argue upon the contingency of the passage 
of this bill. What will be its leading effects ? What its reconciling and salutary con- 
sequences ' The honorable Senator who usually sits before me, but who now sits upon 
my left, (Mr. Hale,) has told us more than once that if you pass this bill you do not 
hush agitation ; you even increase it ; that it will become more violent than ever. 
With regard to that Senator, while I detest his aboUtion principles, I admire his manly, 
pleasant, convivial, and personal qualities ; his good humor, his power of ready debate, 
the promptness with which he can carry on a guerrilla fight in the Senate. 

[Mr. Clat here declined a suggestion from Mr. Clemens to yield to a motion to 
adjourn.] 

I will not say that the Senator from New Hampshire does not believe what he says. 
That, respect for the decorum of debate, and respect for him, will prevent me from 
saying. But, Mr. President, do you believe that the abolitionists conceive that more 
agitation will spring out of this measure than exists now > They live by agitation. 
It is their meat, their bread, the air which they breathe ; and if they saw, in its incipient 
state, a measure giving them more of that food and meat, and bread, and air, do you 
believe that they would oppose themselves to its adoption ? Do you not believe that 
they would hail [Hale] it as a blessing ? [Great laughter.] 

Why, Mr. President, how stands the fact ? There is not an abolitionist in the Uni- 
ted States that I know of — theie may be some — there is not an abolition press, if you 
begin with the abolition press located in Washington, and embrace all others, that is 
not opposed to this bill — not one of them. There is not one abolitionist in this Senate 
chamber or out of it, any where, that is not opposed to the adoption of this compromise 
plan. A"nd why are they opposed to it 1 They see their doom as certain as there is a 
God in Heaven who sends his providential dispensations to calm the threatening storm 
and to tranquillize agitated man. As certain as that God exists in Heaven, your busi- 
ness, [turning towards Mr. Hale] your vocation is gone. I argue much more from 
acts, from instinctive feelings, from the promptings of the heart, from a conscious ap- 
prehension of impending ruin to the cause which they espouse, than I do from the de- 
clamatory and eloquent language which they eni[)loy in resistance to this measure. 
What ! increased agitation, and the agitators against the plan ! It is an absurdity. 

Let us now take up the measure in detail, and see how there could be greater agitation 
after the adoption of this general system of compromise than without its adoption. liCt 
us begin and go over the whole five measures, if you please. There is California, she 
is admitted into the Union : will they agitate about that ? Well, there are the Territo- 
rial Governments established : will they agitate about that? There is the settlement of 
the Texas boundary question : upon what can they agitate about the settlement of the 
boundary of Texas ? They have every probability — I own it frankly to my Southern 
friends, not resulting from the settlement of the boundary, but from the nature and 
character of the country — of having that dedicated also to free soil : will they agitate 
about that ? About a constitutional fugitive bill ? Then, will they agitate about 
the slave-trade in the District of Columbia? That is accomplished. Then what 
can they agitate about, supposing the whole system of measures to be carried 
out? They might agitate a little about not getting the proviso fastened upon the 
bill ; and might agitate a little about not getting the abolition of slavery itself in 
the District of Columbia. The Senator behind me (Mr. Sewakd) has estimates! 
the number of slaves at one thousand. I think he is mistaken, and that it is a 
little more than that. What, in the name of Heaven, will they agitate about if these 
five measures are carried ? Whom will they agitate ? Who will be their auditory in 
the agitation \ Here is a scheme of national reconciliation, a scheme or system which 
brings into fraternal harmony those whose hands were about to raised against each other 
as enemies — a system to which the whole country becomes reconciled. What will they 
agitate about ? To whom will they agitate ? Where will they get followers and dis- 
ciples ? There is a portion of them — I speak not of the free-soilers ; I speak not of 
those who from principle are honestly opposed to the extension of slavery, but of that 
fanatic, desperate band who call themselves, I don't know what — liberty men, or some- 
thing of the kind — but there are those who have declared that this Union ought not to 
exist — those who would strike down the pillars upon which stands the most glorious 
edifice that was ever erected by the arm of man — self-government — and that would 
crush amidst the ruins of the fall all this people, and all the hopes and expectations of 



23 

ourselves and mankind. Men who would go into the temples of the holy God and 
drag from their sacred posts the ministers who are preaching his gospel for the comfort 
of mankind and their salvation hereafter, and burn the temples themselves — they might 
agitate. Men who, if their power was equal to their malignity, would seize the sun of 
this great system of ours, drag it from the position in which it keeps in order the whole 
planetary bodies of the universe, and replunge the world in chaos and confusion to 
carry out their single idea — they, perhaps, might agitate. But the great body of the 
people of the United States will acquiesce in this adjustment, will be reconciled to this 
settlement by their common representatives, after near nine months of anxious and 
arduous struggle. The great body of the people of the United States will be satisfied 
and acquiesce in this great settlement of our national trials and difiiculties, at this the 
most momentous crisis that has ever existed in our history. No, sir ; they may threat- 
en agitation ; they may talk of it, here and elsewhere ; but their occupation is gone. 
They will be stigmatized, and justly stigmatized, as unworthy disturbers ot the peace, 
if they attempt longer to prolong the dissensions and distractions of this country, after 
we have settled, and so well settled, so many questions which have divided us. 

But, Mr. President, I am not only fortified in my convictions that this will be the 
salutary and healing effect of this great plan of compromise and settlement of our difficul- 
ties, but [ am supported by tlie nature of man, and the truth of history. What is that 
nature? Why, sir, after perturbing storms a calm is sure to follow. The nation wants 
repose. It pants for repose, and entreats you to give it peace and tranquillity. Do you 
believe — when the nation's Senators and the nation's Representatives, after such a con- 
tinued struggle as we have had, shall settle these questions — it is po.ssible for the most 
malignant of all men longer to disturb the peace, and quiet, and harmony, of this other, 
wise most prosperous country? But I said not only according to the nature of man- 
but according to the universal desire which prevails throughout the wide-spread land, 
would the acceptance of this measure, in my opinion, lead to a joy and exultation almost 
unexampled in our history. I refer to historical instances occurring in our Government 
to verify me in the conviction I entertain of the healing and tranquilizing consequences 
which would result from the adoption of this measure. What was said when the com- 
promise was passed 1 Then, as now, it was denounced. Then, as now, when it was 
approaching its passage, when being perfected, it was said, "It will not quell the storm, 
nor give peace to the country." How was it received when it passed ? The bells rang, 
the cannons wero fired, and every demonstration of joy throughout the whole land was 
made upon the settlement by the Missouri compromise. Nor is it true, as has been un- 
kindly suggested, I think by the Senator who sits at my left, (Mr. Hale,) that Northern 
men were obliged to remain at home and incur the displeasure of their constituents. 
There was Henry Baldwin, of Pittsburg, Henry Storrs, of New York, and others, if I 
had time to enumerate them, who voted for a settlement of the Missouri question, and 
who retained the confidence and affection of their respective constituents. I suppose the 
Senator was understood, as I understood him, to thtow out something by way of menace 
to Northern Senators, to make them swerve from the patriotic duty which lies before 
them of healing the agitation of the country. They did not lose the confidence of their 
country. They may have in particular instances, but I speak of those of which I had 
a distinct recollection. Yes, sir, the Missouri compromise was received with exultation 
and joy. Not the reception of the treaty of peace negotiated at Ghent, nor any other 
event which has occurred during my progress in public life, ever gave such unbounded 
and universal satisfaction as the settlement of the Missouri compromise. We may argue 
from like causes like eflTects. Then, indeed, there was great excitement. Then, in- 
deed, all the Legislatures of the North called out for the exclusion of Missouri, and all 
the Legislatures of the South called out for her admission as a State. Then, as now, 
the country was agitated like the ocean in the midst of a turbulent storm. But now, 
more than then, has this agitation been increased. Now, more than then, are the dan- 
gers which exist, if the controversy remains unsettled, more aggravated and more to be 
dreaded. The idea of disunion then was scarcely a low whisper. Now, it has become 
a familiar language in certain portions of the country. The public mind and the public 
heart are becoming familiarized with that most dangerous and fatal of all events, the dis- 
union of the States. People begin to contend that this is not so bad a thing as they 
supposed. Like the progress in all human aflfairs, as we approach danger it disappears; 
it diminishes in our conception, and we no longer regard it with that awful apprehension 
of consequences that we did before we came into contact vrith it. Every where now 



24 

there is a state of things, a degree of alarm and apprehension, and determination to fight, 
as they regard it, against the aggressions of the North. That did not so demonstrate 
itself at the period of the Missouri compromise. It was followed — in consequence of the 
adoption of the measure which settled the difficulty of Missouri — by peace, harmony, and 
tranquillity. So now, I infer, from the greater amount of agitation, the greater amount 
of danger, that if you adopt the measures under consideration, they, too, will be followed 
by the same amount of contentment, satisfaction, peace, and tranquillity which ensued 
after the .Missouri compromise. 

Again, another instance ofa compromise which was attended with the happiest effects — 
I mean the compromise of 1833 of the tariff. I could name half a dozen Senators who 
saiH then, as the Senator from New Hampshire says now, that there would be agitation 
still upon the subject of the tariff. It was said : " Yon have adopted the measure which 
will ultimately prostrate the principle of protection. But they will come here at the next 
session, and at every session, until they get thai compromise of the tariff of 1833 removed " 
Far different, however, was its reception among the great mass of the people of the 
United States, and among the manufacturers themselves. I made a tour of New Eng- 
land in that fdl. The compromise passed in March, I think, and that autumn I made 
a tour of New England; and never in my life hive I met with more demonstrations of 
cordial affection and confidence than I experienced at the hand of New England, and 
above all at the hand of the manufacturers. Sir, with regard to that compromise, I take 
the opportunity of saying that I consulted with the manufactureis in preparing that bill — 
not with the jiolitical manufacturers, but with Dupont and other friends of the North, 
Mr. Simn7ons, of Rhode Island, and some others not now necessary to be nanipd. I 
said to them, " How will this measure operate for your mterests I" "Admirably," w^s 
the reply, "for seven years, until you approach the fall of the measure of duties down 
to twenty per cent." I told them what I believed, that before that period arrived Con- 
gress would take up the subject ; and I urged the Van Buren administration to take up 
the subject, and remodify ih^ tariff — not to go back to the former high duties, but to in- 
terpose some degree of protection in behalf of tlie interests of the country, beyond the 
twenty per cent. They did not do it. They suffered the thing to run out , and when 
they came down to 1842, the twenty per cent, went into full operation, and the year be- 
fore, I believe, it operated very disadvantageously to the manufacturers. The tariff' or 
1842 would have restored that interest to the North. The North, and not the South, 
chose in the contest of 1844, to bestow their suffrages in a way which led to ihe passage 
of the tariff of 1846. Sir, I hope you will not understand me as making any complaint 
on a personal groimd. None; none whatever. I felt relieved from the responsibility of 
the situation which my friends, more than myself, wanted me to be placed in. But it 
was the North, it was New Vork, it was Pennsylvania, unintentionally, a'ded by other 
free States, that led to the adoption of the tariff of 1846, by the results of the contest of 
1844. 

Mr. President, I wish I had the physical power to give utterance to the many, many 
ideas which I still have ; but I have it not. I must hasten towards a conclusion. 

The responsibility of this great measure passes from the hands of the Committee, and 
from my hands. They know, and I know, that it is an awful and tremendous responsi- 
bility. I hope that you will meet it with a just conceptiou and a true appreciation of 
its magnitude, and the magnitude of consequences which may ensue from your decision 
one way or the other. The alternatives I fear, which the measure presents, are concord 
and increased discord ; a servile civil war, originating in its causes, on the lower Rio 
Grande, and terminating, possibly, in its consequences, on the upper Rio Grande in 
the Santa Fe country — or the restoration of harmony and paternal kindne=is. 

I believe from the bottom of my soul, that the measure is the re-union of this Union. 
Ibelieve it is the dove of peace, which, taking its serial flight from the dome of the Cap- 
itol, carries the glad tidings of assured peace and restored harmony to all the remotes'. 
extremities of this distracted land. I believe that it will be attended with all these be- 
neficent effects. And now let us discard all resentment, all passions, all petty jealousies, 
all personal desires, all love of place, all hoaning after the gilded crumbs which flill from 
the table of power. Let us forget popular fears, from whatever quarter they may spring. 
Let us go to the limpid fountiin of unadulterated patriotism, and, performing a solemn 
lustration, return divested of all selfish, sinister, and sordid impurities, and think alone of 
our God, our country, our consciences, and our glorious Union; that Union without 
which we shall be torn into hostile fragments, and sooner or later become the victims of 
military despotism, or foreign domination. 



25 

Mr President what is an individual man? An atom, almost invisible without a 
raagnifvins glass-a mere epeck upon the surface of the immense universe-not a se- 
cond in tinfe compared to immeasurable, never-beginning, and never-endmg eterni- 
tv a drop of water in the great deep, which evaporates and is borne ofl by 
the' winds -a erain of sand, which is soon gathered to the dust from which it sprung. 
Shall a being sosmaU. so petty, so fleeting, so evanescent, oppose itself to the onward 
march of a .^reat nation, to subsist for ages and ages to come— oppose itsell to that long 
line of poste'riiy which, issuing from our loins, will endure during the existence ol the 
world ] Forbid it God ! Let us look at our country and our cause ; elevate ourselves 
to the dic'iiitv of pure and disinterested patriots, wise and enlightened statesmen, and 
save our'country from all impending dangers. What if, in the march of this nation to 
greatness and power, we should be buried beneath the wheels that propel it o»ward. 
What are we— what is any man worth who is not ready and willing to sacrifice himselt 
for the benefit of his country when it is necessary? a , t ,i, ^hnl^ 

Now Mr President, allow me to make a shon appeal to some Senators— to the whole 
of the Senaie. Here is my friend from Virginia (Mr. Mason,) ^f^'hom I have never 
been without hopes. I have thought of the revolutionary blood of Geo ge Mason which 
flows in his veins-of the blood of his own father— of his own accompl.shed iather-my 
cherished friend for many years. Can he, knowing, as I think he must know, the wishes 
of the peopU of Kio own State ; can he, with Uie knowledge he possesses oi the public 
sentiment there, and of the high obligation cast upon him by his noble ancestry, can he 
hazard Virginia's greatest and most glorious work — that work, at least, which she, per- 
haps more than any other State, contributed her moral and political power U, erect? 
Can he put at hazard this noble Union, with all its beneficial effects and consequences, 
in the pursuit of abstractions and metaphysical theories — objects unattainable, or worth- 
less, if attained — while that honor of our own common native Stale, which I rever- 
ence and respect with as much devotion as he does, while the honor of that State, and 
the honor of the South are preserved unimpaired by this measure ? 

I appeal, sir, to the Senators from Rhode Island and from Delaware ; my little friends, 
which have stood by me, and by which I have stood, in all the vicissitudes of my politi- 
cal life; two glorious patriotic httle States, vl-hich, if there is to be a breaking up of the 
wafers of this Union, will be swallowed up in the common deluge, and left without sup- 
port. Will they hazard that Union, which is their strength, their power, and their 
greatness ! 

Let such an event as I have alluded to occur, and where will be the sovereign power of 
Delaware and Rhode Island ? If this Union shall become separated, new unions, new con- 
federacies will arise. And with respect to this — if there be any — I hope there is no one in 
the Senate — before whose imagination is flitting the idea ol a great Southern CoiifeJeracy 
to take possession of the Balize and the mouth of the Miasissippi, I say in my place never ! 
neter ! never will we who occupy the broad waters of the Mississippi and us upper tri- 
butaries consent that any foreign flag shall float at the Balize or uptii tne turrets of the 
Crescent city — never — never ! I call upon all the South. Sir, we have had hard words — 
bitter words, bitter thoughts, unpleasant feelings towards each other in the progress of 
this great measure. Let us forget them. Let us sacrifice these feelings. Let us go to 
the altar of our country and swear, as the oath was taken of old, thai we will siand by 
her; we will supfort her ; that we will uphold her Constitution ; that we will preserve her 
Union, and that we will pass this great, comprehensive, and healing system of measures, 
which will hush all the jarring elements, and bring peace and tranquillity to our homes. 
Let me, Mr. President, in conclusion, say that the most disastrous consequences would 
occur, in my opinion, were we to go home, doing nothing to satisfy and tranquilize the 
country upon these great questions. What will be the judgment of maiikiiid, what the 
judgment of that portion of mankind who are looking upon the progress ot this scheme of 
self-government as being that which holds the highest hopes and expectations of amelio- 
rating the condition of mankind — what will their judgment be ? Will m.t all the ino- 
narchs of the old world pronounce our glorious republic a disgraceful faiiuie ? What 
will be the judgment of our constituents, when we return to them and thf-y ask us, How 
have you left your country? Is ah quiet — all happy — are all the seeds of distraction or 
division crushed and diseipated ? And, sir, when you come into the bosom of your 
family, when you come to converse with the partner of your fortunes, ol ymr happiness 
and of your sorrows, and when in the midst of the common oflTspring of both of you, she 
asks you, " Is there any danger of civil war? Is there any danger ot the torch being 
applied to any portion of the country ? Have you settled the questions vvhicii you have 
b€en so long discussing and deliberating upon at Washington? Is all peace and all quiet?" 



26 

What response, Mr. President, can you make to that wife of your choice and those chil- 
dren with whom you have been blessed by God ? Will you go home and leave all in 
disorder and confusion, all unsettled, all open ? The contentions and agitations of the 
past will be increased and augmented by the agitations resulting from our neglect to de- 
cide them. Sir, we shall stand condemned by all human judgment below, and of thai 
above it is not for me to speak. We shall stand condemned in our own consciences, by 
our own constituents, by our own country. The measure may be defeated. I have been 
aware that its passage for many days was not absolutely certain. From the first to the 
last I hoped and believed it would pass, because from the first to the last I believed it 
was founded on the principles of just and righteous concession — of mutual conciliation. 
I believe that it deals unjustly by no part of the republic ; that it saves their honor, and, 
as far as it is dependant upon Congress, saves the interests of all quarters of the country. 
But, sir, I have known that the decision of its fate depended upon four or five vo'.es in 
the Senate of the United States, and upon whose ultimate judgment we could not count 
upon the one side or the other with absolute certainty. Its fate is now committed to the 
hands of the Senate, and to those five or six votes to which I have referred. It may be 
defeated. It is possible that, for the chastisement of our sins or transgressions, the rod 
of Providence may be still applied to us, may be still suspended over us. But, if de- 
feated, it will be a triumph of ultraism and impracticability — a triumph of a most extraor- 
dinary conjunction of extremes; a victory won by ahnlitioni.im ; •^ ^iciory achicvpd by 
free-soilism ; the victory of discord and agitation over peace and tranquillity ; and I 
pray to Almighty God that it may not, in consequence of the inauspicious result, lead to 
the most unhappy and disastrous consequences to our beloved country. [Applause.] 

Mr. BARNWELL. It is not my intention to reply to the argument of the Senator 
from Kentucky, but there were expressions used by him not a little disrespectful to a 
friend whom I hold very dear, and to the State which I in part represent, which seem to 
me to require some notice. I believe, sir, that character does not depend upon words; 
it does not live in eulogy; it is not to be destroyed by obloquy. It rests upon a higher 
and more stable foundation. Upon intelligence, honesty, di:^interestedness, accompa- 
panied with the manifested determination to exercise these high qualities in the best 
mode, for the best ends. To this test I am willing to bring the character of my friend ; 
one with whom my friendship, commencing almost with the cradle, and strengthening 
through Ufe, will, I doubt not, terminate only with the grave. I do not intend to pro- 
nounce his eulogy. It is well for us both that he is no unknown man; nor is he, in this 
assembly or in the other house, without many who know and appreciate him. I am 
very willing to entrust the defence of his character to the judgment of all who know him. 
It is true that his poHtical opinions differ very widely from those of the Senator's from 
Kentucky. It may be true that he, with many great statesmen, may believe that the 
Wilmot proviso is a grievance to be resisted "to the utmost extremity" by those whose 
rights it destroys afld whose honor it degrades. It is true that he may believe— and he 
will not be very singular in the opinion, especially among those who have heard and 
may read the able and triumphant argument of the distinguished Senator from Georgia — 
that the admission of California will be the passing of the Wilmot proviso, when we 
here in Congress give vitality to an act otherwise totally dead, and by our legislation ex- 
clude slaveholders from that whole broad territory on the Pacific ; and, entertaining this 
opinion, he may have declared that the contingency will then have occurred which will, 
in the judgment of most of the slaveholding States, as expressed by their resolutions, 
justify resistance as to an intolerable aggression. If he does entertain and has expressed 
such sentiments, he is not to be held up as peculiarly a disunionist. Allow me to say, 
in reference to this matter, I regret that you have brought it about : but it is true that 
this epitliet "disunionist" is likely soon to have very little terror in it in the South. 
Words do not make things. Rebel was designed as a very odious term when applied by 
those who would have trampled upon the rights of our ancestors, but I believe that the 
expression became not an ungrateful one to the ears of those who resisted them. It was 
not the lowest term of abuse to call those who were conscious that they were struggling 
against oppression; and let me assure gentlemen that the disunionist is rapidly assuming 
at the South the meaning which rebel took when it was baptised in the blood of W arren 
at Bunker's Hill, and illustrated by the gallantry of Jaspar at Fort Moultrie. 

As to the State of South Oarohna, I do not, as I need not, defend her by words. 1 
have said that the character of an individual does not live in words or die from obloquy. 
Much more strongly may this be said of a State. South Carolina has a history for the 



27 

past and a character for the present. To that liistory anJ that character I am perfectly 
willing to leave her, to repel any reproach which may be attempted to be cast upon her. 
Allow me to say, in this connexion, that whilst I listened, a few days since, with a high 
admiration to the eloquent eulogium which the Senator from Massachusetts (now no 
longer in his place) pronounced upon his own State; whilst I freely accorded to her the 
honor which he attributed, it did not seem to me, sir, that he had selected the highest 
attribute of her character as the subject of his eulogium. He spoke of her attachment 
to this Union as the highest subject of his commendation, but he had previously and very 
pointedly alluded to motives, not addressed to the most honorable sentimems of man- 
kind, which might justly render this Union very dear to her. Sir, I prefer to honor 
Massachusetts fir the devotion which, in times past, she has exhibited for freedom, and 
which I doubt not still animates her, because I believe that, as in former days, she justi- 
fied the proud motto with which she emblazoned her escutcheon. So should any, in 
in future time, invade her rights, or disturb her peaceful liberty, she would a.s^ain with 
the sword maintain the heritage sought and gained by it. To this criterion I willingly 
commit my native State; by this standard do I desire that she may be ever judged. Small 
she may be, and weak in numbers, but it is not by the extent of territory, or the num- 
ber of inhabitants that a State is to be measured. Rather by the spirit of its people— a 
spirit which pr.?pares I hem in the maintenance of their liberty to live with her or die for 
her. I will not speak of my devotion to South Carolina : 

" I would rather be beloved on trust for what I feel 
Tlian prove it in her griefs, which raigjit not yield to any cares of mine." 

But this I may claim, in common with all her sons, in the hour of her peril to be 
found at her side, to sustain or perish with her. 

Mr. CLAY. Mr. President, I said nothing with respect to the character of Mr. 
Rhktt, for I might as well name him. I know him personally, and have some respect 
for him. But, if he pronounced the sentiment attributed to Luu of raising the standard 
of disunion and of resistance to the common Government, vvhateve-r he has been, if he 
follows up that declaration by corresponding overt acts, he will be a traitor, and I hope 
he will meet the fate of a traitor. (Great applause in the galleries, with dilficulty sur- 
pressed by the Chair.) 

The PRESIDENT. The Chair will be under the necessity of ordering the gallery 
to be cleared, if there is again the shghtest interruption. He has once already given warn- 
ing that he is under the necessity of keeping order. The Senate chamber is not a theatre. 

Mr. CLAY resumed. Mr. President, I have heard with pain and regret a confirma- 
tion of the remark I made, that the sentiment of disunion is becoming familiar. I hope 
it is confined to South Carolina. I do not regard as my duty what the honorable Sen- 
ator seems to regard as his. If Kentucky to morrow unfurls the banner of resistance 
unjustly, I never will fight under that banner. I owe a paramount allegiance to the 
whole Union — a subordinate one to my own State When my Mate is right — when it 
has a cause for resistance— when tyranny, and wrong, and oppression insuflerable arise — 
I will then share her fortunes; but if she summons me to the battlefield, or to support 
her in any cause which is unjust against the Union, never, never will I engage with 
her in such a cause. 

With regard to South Carolina, and the spirit of her people, I have said nothing. I 
have a respect for her; but I must say, with entire truth, that my respect lor her is that 
inspired by her ancient and revolutionary character, and not so much for her modern 
character. But, spirited as she is, spirited as she may suppose herself to be, competent 
as she may think herself to wield her separate power against the power of this Union, I 
will tell her, and I will tell the Senator himself, that there are as brave, as dauntless, as 
gallant men and as devoted patriots, in my opinion, in every other State in the Union, 
as are to be found in South Carolina herself; and if, in any unjust cause. South Carolina 
or any other State should hoist the flag of disunion and rebellion, thousands, tens of 
thousands, of Kentuckians would flock to the standard of their country to dissipate and 
repress tiieir rebellion. These are my sentiments— make the most of them. 

Mr. BARiVWELL. I do not know that I have any thing to .say exactly in reply to 
the Senator from Kentucky, except that, when he uses such language as "traitors" and 
" their doom," he compels me to remind him of tlie old adage " that there are two ends 
to a rope," and when the Senator comes to the condemnation of "traitors," it may 



28 

prove that they are the true men. With respect to the threats of the Senator irom 
Kentucky, if history speaks true, there was a certain British officer once who promised, 
with a regiment of soldiers, to drive the rebels from one end of the continent to the other. 
I need not say the performance hardly equalled the promise. But I made, I make no 
threats; I institute no comparisons. Far be it from me to detract from the fidelity or the 
gallantry of the people of any of the States of this Union. I should do grett injustice 
to my own convictions were I to do so. With respect to the justice of the cause upheld 
by South Carolina, the Senator has not now to learn that she is sustained in her judg- 
ment by the rei'orded opinions of the numerous States who made common cause with 
the State of Virginia in her assertion of their rights. And shall any State, however 
feeble, subject herself to ruinous and unjust domination from apprehension that tyranny 
might prove too strong for her, that the armed heel of tho oppressor might trample out 
the life vvhicri he only designed to make degraded and miserable? I trust not, sir; and 
I contend only for the duty and the right of asserting justice, even at the hazard of safety. 

Mr. HALE. I do not intend to occupy the attention of the Senate but a moment. 
As the Senator from Kentucky has taken issue with me on a point of history, [ want to 
give what I understand to be the truth of the case. He says the Missouri co:nproinise 
was a very beneticial measure. I do not undertake to sny whether it was or not; but if 
there is any truth in history, though I was a boy at the time, when *^° Npav England 
States were of considerably more relative and numerical importance than they are now, 
the history of those men who went for the Missouri compromise has been a warning 
from that day to this to Northern men who come here on the floor of Congress to sur- 
render Northern right to propitiate power. I think the Senator from Massachusetts in 
my eye, (Mr. D.wis, ) will tell you that some of the most pron^ising and talented of the 
public men in the State, who went for that measure, have never rccoveied from the 
odium with which they were overwhelmed from that day. I think the Senator froui 
Rhode Island could stand up and show that they have living monuments of public odium 
in the persons nf Njrthern representatives who went for that measure in that State. I 
know it was so in New Hampshire; and I believe in that part of the country there was 
but one solitary instance of a Northern statesman that had vitality and elasticity enough 
to rejuvenize himself from the obloijuy with which that measure overwhelmed him, 
and he was an individual well known to the honorable Senator. 

Mr. CLAY. Henry Shaw? 

Mr. HALE. No, sir, John Holmes; the only man in the whole of New England 
that was ever able to recover. 

The honorable J'enator from Georgia asks me if I would serve them so a.^ain. I can 
only tell hi:n that it is s.jid that history is philosophy teaching by example; and when 
he holds up the Missouri compromise, and the fate of those Northern men who went for 
it, as something that is to stimulate us to go for it, does he think that I am ambitious of 
fillin ; a minyr's grave? [Laughter ] No, sir, not at all; nor do I want at this time to 
accelerate the doom which I have no doubt will overtake every inJividuil who shall vote 
for the passage of a measure like this. I have no doubt that the Missouri Compromise 
was very popular at the South; but when any individual undertakes to say that it was a 
popular me.isure at the North, I must be permitted to reply that, with all his great kn.^w- 
ledge, he is greatly mistaken in regard to the truth of history. When the honorable 
Senator from Kentucky travelled in New England, and was received as he says he was, 
and as I have no douiit he was, I can tell him he was received, not because he voted for 
that hill, and was the author of it, but he was received notwithstanding what he had done 
for the Missouri C'ompromise. 

Mr. (LAY. It was after the passage of the tariff act of 1832 that I visited New 
England. 

Mr. HALE. Well, he would have been so received in 1820, or at any time. I be- 
lieve there is no public man in the country that had more enthusiastic friends, if he did 
not have so many in nuaiber, as the honorable Senator. No man had the faculty of at- 
taching his friends to him like the honorable f^enator; and there is no part of the coun- 
try, notwithstanding what men have said of the cold frigid temperanaent of New Eng- 
land, wheie that enthusiasm is more apparent than there. But the Senator mi.-takes al- 
together ihe truth of history ii he thinks that that compromise was popular, or the men 
who voted for it. No, sir; those men are living tombstones to day — those of them who 
are above ground — from the odium and obloquy that has been heaped on them. 



29 

Mr CLAY One or two words in reply to the honorable Senator. He hag con- 
founde.1 two very different epochs in the history of the country. I spoke first of the 
Mi^'^ouri Compromise; and I think I know the names much better than the Senator doc., 
though there were not a great many-notabove ten or twelve from the Iree ^tates-who 
Toted with us for that compromise. I knew at that tnne every one of them, and I pre- 
serve the most friendly recollection of them at this moment If the Senator says they 
were all sacrificed, I am sure he is mistaken. I remember the names of Henry B'lldwin, 
of Piltsbur-; Henry J^torrs, of Whitestown, near l.tica, ^ew York; Judge Ford; 
Henrv ^haw, formerly of Lanesboro', who, although he did not return to Congres^ 
went to the Legislature of his own State whenever he chose, and w.s one of its honored 
influential members long after the passage of the I ompromise. I cannot recollect th«^ 
all at this time. But as to New Hampshire, and some ol the other States we got very 
few supporters from them. I believe Governor Tomlinson was one who favored it at 
heart: and .Mr. Foot voted for it; and was here long after that. I am sure, it you were 
to look over the list of Northern members who voted for the Missouri Compromise, yoii 
would find that a majority of them were sustained. j u , n „. 

The honorable Senator says, however, that there were some sacrificed, and he told us, 
what he need not have done, that he was not .iisposed to sacntice himself Ll'au?hter.J 
He certainly need not have told us that; nobody would suspect him of any sucti patn- 
otic ambition. [Renewed laughter.] Now, if any of these gentlemen were sacnljced 
in the cause of their country, I would write upon their tombstones this epitaph: "Here 
lies a noble patriot, who loved his country better than himself "—an epitaph which I 
would nev.T be able to write, I am afraid, on the tomb of the Senator from New Hamp- 
shire. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HALE. Mr. President, the honorable Senator, it seems to me, has been a littk 
personal. [Laughter.] 

Mr. CLAY. Oh, no. 

Mr. HALE. I do not know whether the honorable Senator's vocation is to write 
epitaphs; but I can tell him that I think the epitaph which the country will write and 
has vi-ritten upon a great many men that have been sent here from the North, and who 
have lost the little muscle they possessed when they were with their constituents, is this: 
" Here ties a man, not who saciificed himself for his country's good, but who sacrificed 
his constituents for the good of office;" and I think of those men who voted for the Mis- 
souri Compromise I know something in regard to their fate. I remember hearing a mem- 
ber, now living, who was a member of Congress from New Ha npshire, and a late chicJ 
justice of the Supreme Court, (.\rthur Liverinore,) tell me that, upon his return home,^ 
just subsequent to the passage of the Missouri Compromise, in passing from the .seat OS 
Government to New Hampshire, he found some men who had v -ted for that measure in 
that very Congress which had just adjourned holding offices under the General Govern- 
ment. That was the epitaph that was written for those men. 

Mr. CLAY. I do not believe that to be the fact. 

Mr. HALE. Well, sir, I will give the location Connecticut was the place where 
he told me that he saw a postmaster appointed from among those who voted for the com- 
promise. There are Connecticut members here who can tell whether the fact is so or nut. 
The Senator says ho does not believe such was the fact. As a matter of information I 
have no doubt of the fact. I know what was the case of an. individual from the t-tite I 
rsfiresent in part. I do not knovv that he got into the post olFjce quite as soon as he 
reached home, but it was very soon alter. 

Mr. DAWSON. I would like to ask the Senator from New Hampshire a single 
question, if he has no objection. Of what value is the best post office in New Hamp- 
shire,^ 

Mr. HALE. The honorable Senator has, I .suppose, asked me a question which is 
indicative of the measure of patriotism among his osvn members; tor I can give no other 
reason for his putting the question. I belu ve the salary of a postmaster in New Hamp- 
shire is about two thousand dollars — enough to commaml votes either in New Hampshire 
or Georgia. [Laughter.] 



30 

^ Thut, sir, hns boon the history of this matter; anil when the honorable Senator from 
Kentucky holils u)) the men who went for the Missouri Compromise as an example, I 
claim the privilege of liokling them up as a warning. It is no menace, and I do not 
intend it as such. 

The honorable Senator says I stated that I would not sacrifice myself for the good of 
my country. I liave never said such a thin?." What I did say was this: that I was not 
80 ambitious as to bury myself in a martyr's grave which was" dug for those who sacii- 
tice tlieir constituents to the seductions and blandishments of power. I know it is a 
popular thing to have a great matter of adjustment and compromise. I know there is 
.something taking in it— something seductive and alluring to the imaginalion, and calcu- 
lated to mislead the judgment. But, sir. strippe.l of alfthese allurements and blandish- 
ments — looking at it, not with the decorations in which the honorable Senator's eloquence 
hns iHirtrayed it, but in the plain, simple, naked visage of truth, what do we see ? 
What do those who are opposed to the spread and exiension of slavery see^ I will not 
go into any delineation of what we do see; but, suHJce to say, we see that which our 
judgments condemn, and which is abhorrent to every feeling of our nature; and no re- 
proach, no obloipiy, no art, no sarcasm, no menace, can, by any possibility, swerve the 
man who teds thus, in regard to the moasuie which is brought before him, from the 
position he has once taken. 

^tr. CLAY. Sir, there are two kinds ot sacrifices wtiicii men make for office. One 
is a sacritiee to power here, and the other is a sacrifice to constituents at home, feeding 
their projiulices and ministering to their antipathies. Now, although tlie honorable 
Senator may not be ready to sacrifice himself to the gifts of power and auihoritv here, I 
do not see him disposed to make any sacrifices, or to he unwilling to accept otiice from 
that other source ol power. On the contrary, Hear he has exhibited too much readiness 
to minister to local and unfounded prejudices, and to inllame sectional aniuiosiiies among 
the piMple whom he represents. 

The honorable Senator talks about the sacrificing of ZS'orthcrn rights and power. 
What rights are sacriliceil in this mea>ure' Let him specify. What rights are sacri- 
ficed? What concession of power and authority is made by the Xorth in this mea- 
sure ■ It is in the hiizh dcsiree ot' probability, that all the newly acquired Territories will 
ultimately be dedicated to the cause of free soil, without the Wilmot proviso. Do they 
hug that prtvious " Wilmot" so to their bosoms that nothing but that will do ? — that no 
other obstacles, no other preventives to the introduction of slavery in the Territories will 
satisfy them but ^\'ilmot, WilKof, WnMor? [s that a sacrifice ? To what power is 
the &^crifice made here ? Are they not satislietl with every real security for the accom- 
plishment of their wishes! or do they require to inflict what they know is regarded as 
derogatory to the honor and the feelings of the South ? 

Sir, Mr. Monroe was in otlicc at the time o*"the passage of the Missouri Compromise, 
and I do not l>elieve one word of any man getting in:o adice in consequence of or as a 
price for his vole upon that occasion — I care no nvhence the charge may come. I know 
most of the men; iuid if I had been aware of the Senator's intention to go over again the 
hst of rs'orthern men who voted for that Compromise, I would have fortified myownre- 
collevtiou by a resort to the journals of the House. Henry Baldwin got no otnce; Henry 
Storrs got none; Henry Shaw gvn none; Judge Ford got none; and I suppose they consti- 
tute about half the Northern vole for that measure. Mr- Foot go no office Mr Holmes 
got none from the General Government until long after, when he was appointed district 
attorney. Some ten or twelve years at^er, when Mr. Adams was in power, he may have 
got an office. Hert\ then, we have six or eight out of the number who gv">i no office ; 
and when Mr. Livermore, or any Kxly else, ventures to make a charge against the memo- 
ry of that virtuous |vitriot, Monroe, and hold out the idea that offices were distributed as 
a rewarvl for the votes given, let him specify the men and the offices. I do not bwlieve 
oue word of it. It is a mistake. I dare say the Senator belieres what he has stated; 
but his informer is mistaken. 

Sir, really these little posthumous debates, after one has become exhausted by the 
main battle of the day, are yery unpleasant. But I stand up here for this measure, and 
I do not want the Scuator to deal in declamation. I ask him what right is sacrificed by 
the North in this measure' Let him tell me ii" the North does not g\rt alaiost every thins, 
and the South nothing but her honor — her exemptiMi from usurped authority to th€ 
Texas land which I have mentioned, together with the lagitJTC slave propoisition, and 



31 

an exemption from agitation on the subject of slavery in the District of Columbia. 1 do 
not want ''eneral broadcast declamation, but specifications. Let us meet them like men, 
point upon point, argument upon argument. Show us the power here to which North- 
ern sacrifice is made. Show what sacrifices, what is sacrificed by the North in this bill. 
That is what I want. 



^ 



